Do the Bulls win in 99 if the group stays together?

[NARFALICIOUS]

Originally Posted by FBJ

No I don't think so because it was clear that the 98 team was the weakest out of all the championship teams since they needed a game 7 to beat the Pacers. Plus that Pacers team was getting better and they showed that by making the Finals in 2000. Also the Western teams were getting better and that was also evident by how the jazz battled the Bulls.

The Pacers lost in 6 to the Knicks.

Are the Bulls facing the Pacers? Or the Knicks?

Is there a lockout? <-- This matters a lot.

How does Toni do with the same team but as a starter?
Does Steve Kerr stay?
Do we acquire another Small Forward to Replace Scottie, and if so, who?

Do the Spurs even make it to the Finals in 99 on a full season?

I think if Scottie has surgery, he is still good enough to be an impact player. Remember, he was a starter on the Blazers in the early 2000s.

If MJ/Pip/Toni/Ron Harper/Phil still stay together through 2002 or 2003, I think they win at least 1 more. I assume they make a few roster changes to stay relevant.

[Canes2006Champs]

Steve Kerr mentioned in a documentary about the break-up he would have stayed had Jordan not retired.

Do the Spurs even make it to the Finals in 99 on a full season?

I think they do. They were a team on the rise going into that season even w/o Kerr. The Lakers had Kurt Rambis as HC that season and I read in Shaqs autobiography about the drama surrounding him and the rest of the team that 1 year. He did not have a lot of respect from his players (Dennis Rodman in particular detested him) and essentially lost control of the team. Utah seemed to be headed for a decline after the 98 finals, and other up and comers like Minnesota, Phoenix, and Sacramento were still young and getting a feel for the playoffs.