Sports Ilustrated Fred Taylor: Bulls Dynasty Greater Than Celtics

[Way Of The Ray <wayray@ix.netcom.com>]

<P><B>What do you consider to be a greater accomplishment: the
Bulls' (probably) six titles in eight years, which would
have been eight straight if Jordan hadn't temporarily
retired, or the Celtics' run of eight in a row in the '60s?
I would have to say the Bulls' run has to be ranked higher.
The players are better, the travel schedule more grinding,
and one thing that is often forgotten is the playoffs are
much longer than in the earlier
era.</B>

<br><I>&#151;Mark Hodge, Greenville,
S.C.

<P></I>

<P>I'd have to agree with you, Mark. I think what the Bulls
have achieved is more impressive, even though they are not
necessarily a better team than the old Celtics. Boston was
so deep in talent that future Hall of Famers like John
Havlicek came off the
bench for a while. There's no way Chicago has ever had that
kind of
depth.

<P>Another thing to consider, besides all the factors you
mentioned, is that if those Celtics teams had played today,
it's hard to see how they could have been kept intact the
way they were 30 years ago. Bill Russell, Bob Cousy,
Havlicek, Sam and K.C.
Jones&#151;can you imagine what the Celtics' payroll would have
been like if they were playing these days? Boston would
surely have lost players to free agency the way teams do
today. Who knows if the Celtics could have kept their run
going under those
circumstances? What would have happened if, say, the St. Louis Hawks had
come along and offered Russell big free-agent money, or if
one of the Joneses had decided he wanted to go to a team
where he could be the star? While the Celtics were
definitely one of the
greatest dynasties in sports history, doing it under today's
conditions, which make it so much harder to keep a nucleus
intact, gives the Bulls a slight edge, in my
opinion.