A more despised championship man in history? The Oilers' Peter Pocklington or the Bulls' GMJerry Krause?

[Crosby2010]

Speaking of Scottie Pippen, what's happened with him lately? Seems like he's become a bit of a nutter.

I don't know about any of that, but I do know Michael Jordan's son is engaged or soon to be engaged to Larsa his ex-wife. A woman that may or may not have been referred to as "Aunt Larsa" at one point is now possibly marrying him. So I think that would cause steam to come out of my ears if I were him.

One question I'm curious to hear everyone's opinion on is how long does Gretzky stay in Edmonton if not for Pocklington trading him to settle his own business debts? Coffey was already gone by 1987, Kurri left after 1990, and the biggest exodus was Messier, Fuhr, and Anderson all getting traded in 1991. We all know the changing economics of the NHL would've inevitably broken them up in the early 90's, especially with the disadvantage Canadian teams had. But I would be curious to see how long you guys think the Oilers would've tried riding out their dynasty.

Gretzky in his 1990 book was not happy about leaving Edmonton. There was a rare view of Gretzky having some words about Pocklington that you don't see from him. It was fresh at the time and you could tell Gretzky never liked the idea of being traded. He had about as much disdain as I have ever seen Gretzky have for Pocklington at that time. I mean, for Gretzky of course. But he didn't seem like he was planning on leaving Edmonton by the way he was talking.

My thought is this with the economics in small market Canada. If the Oilers keep winning Cups how is that worse off than getting rid of your star players and not having that extra revenue? Would a Cup year after year not continue to make your franchise richer? I just never got how giving away an asset like Gretzky was a plus for Pocklington.

While I disagree with blowing the team up, I can at least understand why it happened in 1998. The team was old and the looming labour dispute made rash moves necessary.

For the 1998-99 season, Jordan would have been 36, Pippin 33, Rodman 37. As it was, Rodman was finished as a regular NBA player in 1998-99 and only played 21 regular season games in 1997-98.

Jordan was the 21st oldest starter in the league in 1997-98.

Rodman played in 80 games in 1997-'98. I think you mean the following year with the Lakers where he played just 23.

I will tell you one thing, the people saying the Bulls were finished regardless, well, I'd have sure loved to have seen it be proven on the court. Which it never was. Jordan himself says in the "Last Dance" that he thinks if they were given the chance to have another crack at 7 (or 4 in a row for everyone who wasn't there the whole time) that people would be on board even if it would be tricky to keep Pippen there. I think when you win like that then it becomes addictive and you don't want to give it up. The Bulls had the best record in the NBA in 1998 with 62-20. While they did have some close moments with the Pacers in the semis going to Game 7 and they had some tight games vs. Utah the truth is they were up 3-1 against the Jazz in the final so they really didn't have any more tense moments than other years. In 1993 they were down 2-0 in the series to the Knicks, let's remember, before sobering up. I think somewhere along the way we get this image that it was just a cakewalk for the Bulls and inevitable that they won 6. Not so, they had some close series along the way, not just 1998. I'd still have loved to have seen them go out by losing simply because their time had passed instead of it being decided for them. I think if the Bulls lose in 1999 to someone like the Knicks or the Spurs then it would have been fine for Krause to change things up and start looking towards the future. But after your 6th championship and still having the GOAT on your team? Nah, you ride that out as long as you can until you can't.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

My thought is this with the economics in small market Canada. If the Oilers keep winning Cups how is that worse off than getting rid of your star players and not having that extra revenue? Would a Cup year after year not continue to make your franchise richer? I just never got how giving away an asset like Gretzky was a plus for Pocklington.

Basically the cost of gretzky was about to skyrocket, while the revenue from playoff gates couldnt change that much.

Northlands still seats the same number of people, luxury boxes probably helped, but Albertas ability to spend on luxuries goes with the price of Oil, and oil was down for a long time in the 90s.

IIRC Gretzky went from costing a million back in the late 80s (lets say 1988) to 3M, then over 6M by 1995. Inflation over that same period would only bring his 1988 salary to 1.2M

 

[LightningStorm]

I will tell you one thing, the people saying the Bulls were finished regardless, well, I'd have sure loved to have seen it be proven on the court. Which it never was. Jordan himself says in the "Last Dance" that he thinks if they were given the chance to have another crack at 7 (or 4 in a row for everyone who wasn't there the whole time) that people would be on board even if it would be tricky to keep Pippen there. I think when you win like that then it becomes addictive and you don't want to give it up. The Bulls had the best record in the NBA in 1998 with 62-20. While they did have some close moments with the Pacers in the semis going to Game 7 and they had some tight games vs. Utah the truth is they were up 3-1 against the Jazz in the final so they really didn't have any more tense moments than other years. In 1993 they were down 2-0 in the series to the Knicks, let's remember, before sobering up. I think somewhere along the way we get this image that it was just a cakewalk for the Bulls and inevitable that they won 6. Not so, they had some close series along the way, not just 1998. I'd still have loved to have seen them go out by losing simply because their time had passed instead of it being decided for them. I think if the Bulls lose in 1999 to someone like the Knicks or the Spurs then it would have been fine for Krause to change things up and start looking towards the future. But after your 6th championship and still having the GOAT on your team? Nah, you ride that out as long as you can until you can't.

I think one believing the Bulls don't win any more titles if they stayed together after 1998 and that they still deserved the chance regardless aren't mutually exclusive, as I believe both of those things. Most championship cores have their window close at least a few years before they are dismantled. For example, the Bad Boy Pistons held onto Thomas, Dumars and Laimbeer until they retired, with Rodman being the only notable player they traded, and even he still played 2 more seasons in Detroit following the Bulls dethroning them in 1991. I'm definitely with you with what you previously said about how the Bulls and Oilers dynasties deserved to end on the court/ice, not in a boardroom.

If the Bulls run it back in 1999, I could see everyone expect Pippen being convinced to return. His feud with Krause was the longest and deepest, and since Kukoc could now fill in at small forward, I think Pippen is gone no matter what. But owner Jerry Reinsdorf did offer Jackson a chance to come back one more season, and I think him returning likely has everyone else coming back. Rodman would probably commit for one final season. Even a Bulls team without Pippen deserved a chance to defend their title. Then if they don't win it all that season, and I don't see them beating the Spurs even if they make the finals, then break it up. I think Jackson still would've had his sights on the Lakers anyway had he coached the Bulls in 1999.

Even though the Bulls absolutely deserved the chance to run it back in 1999, the fact that they were nearing the end makes this a much more nuanced situation than the Oilers being broken up prematurely.

(For another aspect of these dynasties being broken up in boardrooms instead of being dethroned, this reminds me of the most recent college football playoff, where a committee decided one loss Alabama was a "better team" than undefeated Florida State and chose Alabama for the last spot. Most agree Alabama was the better team, but a committee deciding that instead of letting in a Florida State team who earned it left a similar bad taste in my mouth of sports wrongly being decided in boardrooms instead of the games itself.)

 

[blogofmike]

Speaking of Scottie Pippen, what's happened with him lately? Seems like he's become a bit of a nutter.

He and Horace didn't really like the MJ-centric Last Dance that they think put them in a bad light while puffing up MJ.

In fairness, people treat the other guy differently when HE takes such things personally.

 

[LightningStorm]

He and Horace didn't really like the MJ-centric Last Dance that they think put them in a bad light while puffing up MJ.

In fairness, people treat the other guy differently when HE takes such things personally.

As an Orlando Magic fan (basically the Lightning of the NBA), Horace Grant's dislike of the Bulls has been a well known thing ever since he left Chicago for Orlando. There was the time the Magic beat the Bulls in 1995 (Bulls only playoff loss with MJ after 1990) when Shaq lifted him up on his shoulders when the series ended.

Even before The Last Dance, Grant always spoke more fondly about his Orlando days than Chicago ones. He would later win another ring with Shaq in LA in 2001.

 

[Crosby2010]

Basically the cost of gretzky was about to skyrocket, while the revenue from playoff gates couldnt change that much.

Northlands still seats the same number of people, luxury boxes probably helped, but Albertas ability to spend on luxuries goes with the price of Oil, and oil was down for a long time in the 90s.

IIRC Gretzky went from costing a million back in the late 80s (lets say 1988) to 3M, then over 6M by 1995. Inflation over that same period would only bring his 1988 salary to 1.2M

I don't know how long they keep Gretzky, but raise ticket prices, raise the cost of a beer, playoff tickets, etc. Find a way to afford him. You are far better off doing this than not. And the proof is in the pudding, the Oilers didn't do this and look at the black hole they fell in starting in the early 1990s. You pay him well, you treat him fairly, you put talent around him, you win.............if he leaves the Oilers at that point then I suppose he can explain it to the fans why. But he wouldn't win the public opinion battle. He did in 1988 though, and the winner was L.A.

He and Horace didn't really like the MJ-centric Last Dance that they think put them in a bad light while puffing up MJ.

In fairness, people treat the other guy differently when HE takes such things personally.

I love that documentary, I was hooked, and it brought back fond memories, just how I recall it happening as well. But I will say one thing, Jordan when you look at it comes off as someone who still clings to a grudge. I get it, you have to have an ego to be that good, but for whatever reason he had no interest in showing any sort of humility during those interviews. All of those years later he still hates the Pistons (they hate him too of course) and there were times he just came off childish.

 

[jcs0218]

I don't know about any of that, but I do know Michael Jordan's son is engaged or soon to be engaged to Larsa his ex-wife. A woman that may or may not have been referred to as "Aunt Larsa" at one point is now possibly marrying him. So I think that would cause steam to come out of my ears if I were him.



Gretzky in his 1990 book was not happy about leaving Edmonton. There was a rare view of Gretzky having some words about Pocklington that you don't see from him. It was fresh at the time and you could tell Gretzky never liked the idea of being traded. He had about as much disdain as I have ever seen Gretzky have for Pocklington at that time. I mean, for Gretzky of course. But he didn't seem like he was planning on leaving Edmonton by the way he was talking.

My thought is this with the economics in small market Canada. If the Oilers keep winning Cups how is that worse off than getting rid of your star players and not having that extra revenue? Would a Cup year after year not continue to make your franchise richer? I just never got how giving away an asset like Gretzky was a plus for Pocklington.



Rodman played in 80 games in 1997-'98. I think you mean the following year with the Lakers where he played just 23.

I will tell you one thing, the people saying the Bulls were finished regardless, well, I'd have sure loved to have seen it be proven on the court. Which it never was. Jordan himself says in the "Last Dance" that he thinks if they were given the chance to have another crack at 7 (or 4 in a row for everyone who wasn't there the whole time) that people would be on board even if it would be tricky to keep Pippen there. I think when you win like that then it becomes addictive and you don't want to give it up. The Bulls had the best record in the NBA in 1998 with 62-20. While they did have some close moments with the Pacers in the semis going to Game 7 and they had some tight games vs. Utah the truth is they were up 3-1 against the Jazz in the final so they really didn't have any more tense moments than other years. In 1993 they were down 2-0 in the series to the Knicks, let's remember, before sobering up. I think somewhere along the way we get this image that it was just a cakewalk for the Bulls and inevitable that they won 6. Not so, they had some close series along the way, not just 1998. I'd still have loved to have seen them go out by losing simply because their time had passed instead of it being decided for them. I think if the Bulls lose in 1999 to someone like the Knicks or the Spurs then it would have been fine for Krause to change things up and start looking towards the future. But after your 6th championship and still having the GOAT on your team? Nah, you ride that out as long as you can until you can't.

I think one believing the Bulls don't win any more titles if they stayed together after 1998 and that they still deserved the chance regardless aren't mutually exclusive, as I believe both of those things. Most championship cores have their window close at least a few years before they are dismantled. For example, the Bad Boy Pistons held onto Thomas, Dumars and Laimbeer until they retired, with Rodman being the only notable player they traded, and even he still played 2 more seasons in Detroit following the Bulls dethroning them in 1991. I'm definitely with you with what you previously said about how the Bulls and Oilers dynasties deserved to end on the court/ice, not in a boardroom.

If the Bulls run it back in 1999, I could see everyone expect Pippen being convinced to return. His feud with Krause was the longest and deepest, and since Kukoc could now fill in at small forward, I think Pippen is gone no matter what. But owner Jerry Reinsdorf did offer Jackson a chance to come back one more season, and I think him returning likely has everyone else coming back. Rodman would probably commit for one final season. Even a Bulls team without Pippen deserved a chance to defend their title. Then if they don't win it all that season, and I don't see them beating the Spurs even if they make the finals, then break it up. I think Jackson still would've had his sights on the Lakers anyway had he coached the Bulls in 1999.

Even though the Bulls absolutely deserved the chance to run it back in 1999, the fact that they were nearing the end makes this a much more nuanced situation than the Oilers being broken up prematurely.

(For another aspect of these dynasties being broken up in boardrooms instead of being dethroned, this reminds me of the most recent college football playoff, where a committee decided one loss Alabama was a "better team" than undefeated Florida State and chose Alabama for the last spot. Most agree Alabama was the better team, but a committee deciding that instead of letting in a Florida State team who earned it left a similar bad taste in my mouth of sports wrongly being decided in boardrooms instead of the games itself.)

I was a Bulls fan back in the 1990s.

And although I was sad at the time that they got broken up during the 1998 offseason, in hindsight it was for the best.

I think it is best for their legacy that they were broken up the way that they were rather than beaten on the court.

Because it is now 26 years later, and they still have that mystique of invincibility. They have always had an aura around them that said they weren't capable of being defeated when it truly counted.

Losing to the Spurs in the 1999 NBA Finals would have damaged the historical legacy of that Bulls dynasty. They would no longer have had the same mystique and the same aura around them that they have carried forward for 26 years (and will always continue to carry forward).

And losing to the Spurs in 1999 would have likely happened because of the Bulls age and the fact that the Spurs with Duncan/Robinson were a bad matchup.

The Bulls were starting to show cracks in 1998. It was best for them to quit while on-top.

Jordan hitting the iconic championship-winning shot in 1998 is a much better way to close-out a dynasty rather than getting beaten by the Spurs in 1999.

 

[MeHateHe]

Pocklington wasn't just disliked in Edmonton because of the trade, but because he was a bit of a shit businessman.

He owned Gainers, which was I think the largest meat packing company in Canada at the time and he was running it into the ground when the workers went on strike. Of course Pocklington brought in scabs, because of course he did. The Alberta government eventually had to step in to settle the strike - it went on for I think two years - and then had to bail Pocklington out. Gainers is, shall we say, no longer the largest meat packing company in Canada.

You might think that conservative Alberta wouldn't be too bothered by an anti-union guy, but they call Edmonton Redmonton, after all, because it's more likely to lean left and they have a lot more blue-collar union guys in Edmonton than in Calgary. Moreover, his dealings in Gainers was reflective of how he treated a lot of folks in the C-suites around town: he was a bit of a bully with a big mouth and more of an ego than he really should have had.

Overall, he wasn't a very sympathetic character. The sale of Gretzky, how he went about it, and why it happened, were all examples of his character.

 

[Voight]

What always got mr is sneaking his dads name onto the cup engraving list.

All he had to do was hire him as some senior advisor no show job and it would've been perfectly fine.

 

[Crosby2010]

I was a Bulls fan back in the 1990s.

And although I was sad at the time that they got broken up during the 1998 offseason, in hindsight it was for the best.

I think it is best for their legacy that they were broken up the way that they were rather than beaten on the court.

Because it is now 26 years later, and they still have that mystique of invincibility. They have always had an aura around them that said they weren't capable of being defeated when it truly counted.

Losing to the Spurs in the 1999 NBA Finals would have damaged the historical legacy of that Bulls dynasty. They would no longer have had the same mystique and the same aura around them that they have carried forward for 26 years (and will always continue to carry forward).

And losing to the Spurs in 1999 would have likely happened because of the Bulls age and the fact that the Spurs with Duncan/Robinson were a bad matchup.

The Bulls were starting to show cracks in 1998. It was best for them to quit while on-top.

Jordan hitting the iconic championship-winning shot in 1998 is a much better way to close-out a dynasty rather than getting beaten by the Spurs in 1999.

I can remember Shaggy was once on a sports talk show and they were talking about Michael Jordan's comeback in 2001, which is often forgotten, and for good reason. But Shaggy said he didn't like Jordan making a comeback because he left in 1998 right on top, winning a championship, draining the final shot to win it and winning the MVP of the league as well as finals MVP too. He said it was like going out the way "Seinfeld" did - on top and still the best in the business. So I get that, we will always have that "would they or wouldn't they" question about them and I suppose you can say it makes them even more mysterious and legendary.

I guess you can think about it like the Lakers of the 1980s. They were going for three in a row but were hobbled and older in 1989 and got turfed by the Pistons and that was sort of the end for them (they reached the final in 1991 in a losing cause too). Maybe if Magic and Kareem after 1988 sort of take a bow and leave then we always have this "what more could they have done" thinking. But then again, that would have been players deciding this on their own, not a GM putting his stamp of approval onto the team and messing it up in the boardrooms of the league.

 

[The Panther]

Pocklington wasn't just disliked in Edmonton because of the trade, but because he was a bit of a shit businessman.

He owned Gainers, which was I think the largest meat packing company in Canada at the time and he was running it into the ground when the workers went on strike. Of course Pocklington brought in scabs, because of course he did. The Alberta government eventually had to step in to settle the strike - it went on for I think two years - and then had to bail Pocklington out. Gainers is, shall we say, no longer the largest meat packing company in Canada.

You might think that conservative Alberta wouldn't be too bothered by an anti-union guy, but they call Edmonton Redmonton, after all, because it's more likely to lean left and they have a lot more blue-collar union guys in Edmonton than in Calgary. Moreover, his dealings in Gainers was reflective of how he treated a lot of folks in the C-suites around town: he was a bit of a bully with a big mouth and more of an ego than he really should have had.

Overall, he wasn't a very sympathetic character. The sale of Gretzky, how he went about it, and why it happened, were all examples of his character.

This is good post. Well done.

I also think Pocklington would have garnered less anger after the Gretzky sale if he had been open and honest about it. He could have said something publicly, like, "It's very sad that this happened, but it was done largely out of economical necessity. We simply can't afford to pay Wayne what he's worth on the open market."

Instead, after the "Wayne came to me and asked me for a trade" nonsense at the presser, Pocklington a few weeks later doubled-down and told media (supposedly off the record, but not really) that "Wayne has an ego the size of Manhattan" and then tried to blame the whole thing on Janet.

 

[LightningStorm]

I also think Pocklington would have garnered less anger after the Gretzky sale if he had been open and honest about it. He could have said something publicly, like, "It's very sad that this happened, but it was done largely out of economical necessity. We simply can't afford to pay Wayne what he's worth on the open market."

As the Oilers dynasty expert on this board, I'd be curious to hear your opinion on how long you think their core could've been kept together before the economics would've broken them up. Could they have lasted together up to 1991? That was the offseason Messier, Fuhr, and Anderson were traded. My best guess is 1993 is the maximum amount of time they could've stayed together, but since you witnessed it first hand I'd be curious on how long Gretzky and the Oilers core as a whole could've stayed together until the economics that disadvantaged Edmonton twofold (small market and Canadian) would've broken them up.

 

[MeHateHe]

Instead, after the "Wayne came to me and asked me for a trade" nonsense at the presser,

Yeah, that really shone a spotlight for fans what others in the Edmonton area knew about him.

 

[Crosby2010]

This is good post. Well done.

I also think Pocklington would have garnered less anger after the Gretzky sale if he had been open and honest about it. He could have said something publicly, like, "It's very sad that this happened, but it was done largely out of economical necessity. We simply can't afford to pay Wayne what he's worth on the open market."

Instead, after the "Wayne came to me and asked me for a trade" nonsense at the presser, Pocklington a few weeks later doubled-down and told media (supposedly off the record, but not really) that "Wayne has an ego the size of Manhattan" and then tried to blame the whole thing on Janet.

To this day I think there are some that still like the idea that Janet is the Yoko Ono of this whole operation. She wasn't an A-list actor even in the 1980s, and the idea that they moved to L.A. for her own career was nonsense. But it stuck with a lot of people. And it sort of stuck to her for a while too. However, when you look at it, she was pregnant at the time of the trade in 1988. Then they had 5 kids in total. So during Gretzky's career she was pregnant half of the time. So yeah, no time for this lavish Hollywood career. In fact, I know she had a small role in "Alpha Dogs" but I can't recall anything else she's really been in since she met Gretzky. Even their son Trevor has some acting credits that include being in the "Saw" movie from 2020 or so that had Chris Rock in it. Anyway, Janet was never the reason for the trade.

 

[LightningStorm]

I was a Bulls fan back in the 1990s.

And although I was sad at the time that they got broken up during the 1998 offseason, in hindsight it was for the best.

I think it is best for their legacy that they were broken up the way that they were rather than beaten on the court.

Because it is now 26 years later, and they still have that mystique of invincibility. They have always had an aura around them that said they weren't capable of being defeated when it truly counted.

Losing to the Spurs in the 1999 NBA Finals would have damaged the historical legacy of that Bulls dynasty. They would no longer have had the same mystique and the same aura around them that they have carried forward for 26 years (and will always continue to carry forward).

And losing to the Spurs in 1999 would have likely happened because of the Bulls age and the fact that the Spurs with Duncan/Robinson were a bad matchup.

The Bulls were starting to show cracks in 1998. It was best for them to quit while on-top.

Jordan hitting the iconic championship-winning shot in 1998 is a much better way to close-out a dynasty rather than getting beaten by the Spurs in 1999.

I can remember Shaggy was once on a sports talk show and they were talking about Michael Jordan's comeback in 2001, which is often forgotten, and for good reason. But Shaggy said he didn't like Jordan making a comeback because he left in 1998 right on top, winning a championship, draining the final shot to win it and winning the MVP of the league as well as finals MVP too. He said it was like going out the way "Seinfeld" did - on top and still the best in the business. So I get that, we will always have that "would they or wouldn't they" question about them and I suppose you can say it makes them even more mysterious and legendary.

I guess you can think about it like the Lakers of the 1980s. They were going for three in a row but were hobbled and older in 1989 and got turfed by the Pistons and that was sort of the end for them (they reached the final in 1991 in a losing cause too). Maybe if Magic and Kareem after 1988 sort of take a bow and leave then we always have this "what more could they have done" thinking. But then again, that would have been players deciding this on their own, not a GM putting his stamp of approval onto the team and messing it up in the boardrooms of the league.

This reminds me of how MJ/Bulls fans like pushing the narrative that they could simply will themselves to championships whenever they wanted to, with an example being the 6-0 in the finals narrative pushed by Skip Bayless. Obviously losing to the Spurs in 1999 would've put a dent in this narrative, though not having Pippen would likely be the reasoning. I agree entirely about the difference between the players choosing to leave while on top versus a boardroom breaking them up though, and the players (minus Pippen) were clearly interested in forcing another team to knock them off the top rather than leaving on top.

The Bulls being invincible in the 90's is a narrative that's easy to push among casual fans based on how things turned out. But when looking at the career of MJ and the Bulls at the time, 2 things stand out to me contrary to popular narrative:

1. MJ fans saying he was invincible at his best has often implied that his peak was the entire 90's. However, his true peak was 86/87-92/93, with the early 90's being his absolute peak. The obsession over his 6 rings has underrated his late 80's career, and possibly slightly overrated his late 90's career. Don't get me wrong, 95-98 Jordan was still best player in the league great, but not GOAT great like he was the 7 seasons prior to his first retirement.

2. The end result of both Bulls 3-peats was the same, to the point where MJ wasn't around the next season to go for 4 in a row. But despite this, the first 3-peat stands out as the better one. Jordan and Pippen were both better, and the competition was stronger. The NBA overexpanded in the late 80's, but the effects of the league being watered down weren't fully felt during the first 3 peat. By the 2nd one they were though. plus the 2 Canadian expansion teams added in 1995 threw gasoline on the fire. Then there's also the factor I mentioned upthread of the young Orlando and Seattle teams during that span being broken up BEFORE The Last Dance. Imagine if the Bad Boy Pistons were broken up before the 80's Lakers and Celtics, or if the MJ Bulls were broken up before the Bad Boys, and that's the equivalent of what happens with the Magic and Sonics, though the Magic certainly had the greater dynasty potential of the two. All in all I think the first 3 peat was truly the Bulls time to rule the league, when they were truly at their best. 1992 is who I think was the best Bulls team. But the 2nd 3-peat, though they went out and earned it, I do think it was more of a perfect storm of things I mentioned in their favor. 1996 was definitely a great team, and I think they would've still won it even without these things going in their favor. But the league being watered down and the great young teams being broken up before them aided them 3-peating a 2nd time to a greater degree than anything aided them in the first 3 peat.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

Hatred for Krause is completely unjustified.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Tbh it's gotta be about even here but maybe Krause is worse from a broad perspective and if you judge a book by its cover the situations look the same but tbh they really weren't.

If you go into the Bulls situation Jordan showed up in 84-85 and they didn't win till 90-91 that's 7 whole years and it took the Bulls 4 years to have any playoff sucess. On top of all of it pre Jordan the Bulls were a redheaded step child in a good sports town that supported their 4 other major teams well. The Chicago Sting soccer club even outgrew the Bulls in the early 80s. Krause did reference a meeting post 98 finals where the health records came back on Pippen and Rodman and they weren't good. Granted Krause was a bit of a baby for wanting more credit for that dynasty but honestly he was trying to make the Bulls into a top notch organization like the Lakers and Celtics alas the plan failed. Had it worked and they won again say in 04 or 05 the dismantling would have largely been forgotten. Had the Bulls maybe won earlier say in 88 and he was able to bring in younger players maybe it wouldn't have been pronounced as well, and maybe if Jordan didn't come back in 95 it wouldn't have happened either. Alas Krause did himself no favors with his my way attitude towards things but imo he may have been right the team was older.

The Oliers situation similar on a broad scale but yet different as well. Gretzky came in 79, rest of the team established by 81. Playoff series win in 81,division title in 82,finals in 83,cup in 84. Unlike the Bulls above these Oilers were no red headed step child they were the only game in town in a small town. Imho the vast expansion from 67 to 79 that saw the league almost quadruple in size there was maybe a mentality with most players saying I'm happy I have a job and this salary a few years ago I'd be riding a bus. Also up until the 80s the league was still the traditional Montreal Canadiens were tops with not much competition. Now obviously you had the Islanders in the early 80s but those teams were also prone to blowing it years earlier. Once these Oilers teams got to 1987 they realized yeah cups are nice but were not getting compensated. At the time you had Mario in Pittsburgh which isn't a huge market but bigger than Edmonton and Steve Yzerman in Detroit getting paid. The big thing in Detroit was also Mike Illitch would take care of his players to win. I'm sure this rang in Pocklingtons head and well he said I'm gonna lose all of them for nothing let me at least recoup. Difference these players were younger, and the dismantling was slow. On top of it the Oliers won in 1990 sans Gretzky and Coffey that would be like the Bulls winning in 2000 with Pippen and Kukoc leading the charge. While I'm sure some fans still hate Pocklington I'm not so sure the hate is as pronounced.

Funny part about all of it is Pocklington broke up a team that could have possibly competed up until 1996, Krause knew the Bulls were done and it was time. Pocklington should be hated more but i lean towards Krause despite his vision making more sense. On top of it all the Bulls went back to decreasing in visibility in Chicago the Oilers remained the top draw in Edmonton. I also think visibility rang in Krause's head. Hope it makes sense.

 

[Hobnobs]

Between these two it's Pocklington

Would be interesting to rank the worst owners in pro american sports and see how long it would take for NHL owners to come up.

 

[CharlestownChiefsESC]

Between these two it's Pocklington

Would be interesting to rank the worst owners in pro american sports and see how long it would take for NHL owners to come up.

Wirtz and Jacobs would come before Pocklington

 

[MeHateHe]

Wirtz and Jacobs would come before Pocklington

Charles Wang waves hello.