[Yahoo-NBC Sports]Charles Barkley: I wouldn’t count ring if I won with Rockets

More so early. As the season progressed he seemed to lose interest.

Woulda been nice if he had been able to lure KJ after the injuries.

And if he could have embraced everything as much as he accepted Malone’s embrace (alas)...

 

chuck should have left when we started rebuilding but he stayed for francis and mobley.

shame les screwed him over

 

@tinman Charles didn’t get what was promised to him by LES

 

We literally have nothing else basketball related to talk about so let him publicly talk about it lol

 

I don’t disagree with his sentiment about ring chasing, but the truth in retrospect he would have earned it the first year he was here. He had to carry a much bigger load that he likely thought he’d have to. His point guard and floor spacing shooter was Matt Maloney for crying out loud. Dream and Clyde had taken a step back too so I don’t think he’s correct about the first year but I appreciate the sentiment. Kevin Durant going to Golden State being the biggest asterisk on a championship ring I can think of off the top of my head.

 

I disagree with Chuck. Ring chasing/creating a "super team" as you're exiting your primes or well past is fine. Chuck dealt with carrying trash in Philly long enough, and didn't demand a trade to a contender, but to a solid team that he turned into a contender and himself into an MVP-all at the age of 29. He didn't come to the Rockets until 33, 34 years old by All-Star break. Likewise, Drexler carried the Blazers to 2 finals and didn't come to join up with Hakeem until midway through his 32 year old season. KG carrying trash in Minny,etc. Malone was like 38. Wilt at 32 post bum knees joining 30 year old J.West/34 year old Elgin. Oscar at 32 joining Kareem. Shell of himself Bill Walton joining Boston off the bench. Rodman nearly out of the league and 34 years old joining Chicago.

I think it's fine to get your ring past your prime. It doesn't carry nearly as much weight, but it still counts. LeBron ushered in an era of mercenaries ditching out their teams at 25 years old to join up with others to win. No one wants to go through the grind of trying to carry their team for the majority of their career.

Moses might be the only one from pre LeBron I can think of that was a multiple time MVP that got his trade at 27 years old to play with and obviously form major super team in Philly with Dr. J, BUT DR. J was 32 and on his last legs.

So yeah, what's weak af is creating super teams in your early-mid 20's because you have no patience to build. KD never leaves OKC who was on the cusp of beating GS to join them if Lebron hadn't pushed him to get his own rings by doing the same as they are facing each others legacies.

 

There's also the weak sauce move of demanding a trade or leaving to a franchise where you just know they will eventually get another star next to you and greatly increase rings,
ie: Kareem to LA-eventually got Wikes/Nixon/Magic/Worthy/Coop/old fomer stars

ie: Shaq to LA

ie: Kobe will play in Europe if he can't play for the Lakers.

ie: LeBron to LA (If LeBron stayed in Cleveland his whole career-won his 1, and left at 34 to LA and possibly going to win his 2nd at 35 with an in prime AD-i'd still have way more respect for him than I do and ever will because of the Miami move and then the ditching Miami once they fell off again move. Nothing but a mercenary for hire.)

 

How would I hypothetically feel about something if I hypothetically would have done it but didn’t.


Ok

 

But if we're going to define guys like Malone/Barkley's careers as incomplete because they never won a ring... that does create the incentive for younger players like KD to win rings when they're in their prime, regardless if it involves joining a super team.

Sports fans entirely hypocritical as well on this. In the end, everybody always mentions the fact that Malone and Barkley never won it all, despite them being the main focal point of their teams that came up short. Drexler would have also been in that category had he never been traded. Harden and Paul are on the cusp of joining that group as well.

If championships are the end-all/be-all... then players should try and get them any way they can.

 

yet another stupid comment from the king of stupid comment. let your rockets hate fly chuck. spew that hate; that's all you're good for.

 

That is why it was a shrewd move by LBJ.

Knew he could secure his legacy with couple titles at South Beach, tolerated the hate that he got from the Decision and then went back to redeem himself.

Also got him near the GOAT place.

Secure legacy earlier on.
Hometown hero with bringing a title.
Now save the Lakers.

Now have 3 franchises potentially at your feet.

It only took some decisions.

 

did you just say it was shameless that Chuckles was kisslessly scrod???

 

I don’t count his rings In Phoenix either

 

I don’t recall the ‘ring’ talk being what it’s become BEFORE Chuckles started in about it. As a result, some greats don’t get their due while other good players like Harry and Elie get extra due.

IMO - The Big O was still The Big O and would always remain so regardless of if he hadn’t met up with Alcindor/Kareem in Milwaukee. McAdoo was the first unicorn, truly great. But he only won titles role-playing on 80s Lakes. The best version never reached the mountaintop.

Dray is more worthy than Harden? C’mon.
Kyrie is more worthy than Westbrook? C’mon.
Serge is more worthy than either???

 

Doing it, and being proud of what you 'built' are two different things. I don't necessarily see hypocrisy here.

 

Don't get me started about the ring-counting fans/media. I have been saying this for a long time. Using team achievement to measure individual greatness is just dumbing down the whole understanding of the game.

 

exactly. i understand people being mad about lebron leaving to form a superteam, but he wanted to be in the GOAT debate, and you can't show up to that debate with 1 title. you really wonder what happens if cleveland has a jerry krause (or similarly good/lucky gm) build a bulls type team. jordan probably got tired of carrying the bulls early in his career, but at the moment he could have thought about leaving, pippen and grant came into their prime and he had no reason to leave. his best option was staying. in cleveland, while they obviously won lots of regular season games, not only had they failed to give him a better option than mo williams, but they were old and probably nearer to rebuilding than contending. lebron might have been 28 before even thinking about contending again. considering how much pressure he had his whole career and how much "he can't win" talk he was getting at just 25 and how much "ringzzz" had entered the conversation, i think he just thought he couldn't risk it and he had to go control his own destiny.

unfortunately, the best way to do that is to create a superteam. fortunately for lebron, the super team wasn't as super as they hoped (not 5, not 6, etc) and lebron actually had to be mj-level to win and still looked great in winning. and then when miami fell off, again he just didn't have time to wait for a rebuild because of those first 7 years that cleveland wasted.

 

It's more than that. Winning championships brings $$$ too. Don't think for a minute that isn't a major consideration today. Probably bigger than actually winning it.

 

especially in basketball. like i feel football players can have their greatness, at least their statistics, affected by their team. a great running back with a great offensive line or a terrible offensive line is two different players. it can be the difference in 5 ypc and 3.5 ypc, for the exact same amount of talent. you can at least feel like that running back is better or worse.

but in basketball? lebron james with dwyane wade or mo williams is lebron james. hakeem with clyde drexler or buck johnson is hakeem. jordan with pippen or "insert mid-80's bulls player" is michael jordan. so the idea that winning and losing determine if you played well in a game just seems stupid. if jordan averages 38/7/7 while losing, we don't have to wonder "but is he really a great player?" because we know the other team could do nothing to stop him. and they probably won't stop him with more talent around him. that's basically all of nba history. players' numbers and impact seem to remain fairly constant no matter whom they are surrounded with.

now sometimes a great player's number get worse and their team loses because of that. there's nothing wrong with pointing that out and using it to rank players. david robinson got demostrably worse in the playoffs. karl malone got worse. and they had really good teams lose to teams they might not have lost to with better performances from their stars. so ranking them lower isn't just looking at rings, it's looking at how they actually performed as individuals and making a judgment.

 

Easy to say when you didn’t actually win it.