As much as I like Barkley, we should never have traded for him

Moot point.

 

I have to agree with FinalFantasy. We would have been first round exits and chances are would not have made the playoffs every year. Also consider both Horry and Cassell were coming up on new contracts. Had we re-signed them we would be very limited on the moves we could make even today. I have said this before and will say it again-CASSELL IS OVERRATED. Until this year what has he done. Well that is not really a good question because without him we don't go to the playoffs. The man is not afraid to take the shot with the game on the line which is a plus but other than that what has he done? He is constantly injured, he plays out of control, and he did not really play much defense. He is built up by Houston fans who live off the past. Our team is much better off right now had we kept Cassell, Horry, Bryant, and Chucky and not traded them.

 

Final Fantasy,

I can't believe that you are so down on my boy Sammy! Blasphemy. Have you watched him play lately? I was against the Barkley trade when we made it. CB4 has grown on me since, but Sammy is a better player at this point (not to mention Horry, Mark Bryant, or Chucky Brown and his Fan Club). I love Francis's game, and he should be an future all-star, many times. But ET's playing at an all-star level this year. He is playing better (19 points and 9 assists) than either Marbury (24 and 7) or Brandon (15 and 8), the guys he was traded for.

Enough said.

 

Final Fantasy,

Are you talking about the 95-96 season? If you are, we made it to the 2cd round of the playoffs, not the first. If your talking about our problems with Seattle, then you forget that they were coming off an excellent season. You also forget that I proposed that we trade Horry for a starting quality PF, the following season, so I don't think that would be a problem after that.

Rocket Siv:

Cassell's stat's this year:
fg .470 3 pt fg .231 ft .907 rpg 3.8 apg 9.1 spg 1.59 ppg 19.2

Yeah, I wish we had more "OVERRATED" guys like this in Rocks uniforms.

DaDakota and Francis3:

I see no reason why Final Fantansy and I need to stop. I respect his (FinalFantasy: I apologize if your a "her", I'm just making an assumption ) opinion and like the debate we've got going. It hasn't gotten ugly, and I don't believe that it will.

 

One more time.

Assuming rough parity between what each team gives up, there are two big factors in any trade. The first is which team got the best player. The second is which team got the younger players.

The best kind of trade is one in which we get the best player and the youngest players. The worst is one in which we get neither. In between, there is a third kind of trade in which we get the best player but give up younger players for him -- and a fourth kind in which we get younger players but give up the best player.

The Francis trade is in Category 1 -- a clear win for us, even though we had to eat Don MacLean's salary for it. The Stoudamire trade also would have been in Category 1. The Barkley trade is in Category 3. The Pippen trade is in Category 4. Whether you think 3 is better than 4 is up to you -- but be consistent. For my money, I'd rather get the best player than get younger, on the grounds that it's harder to pick up great players than young ones. So I think the Barkley trade was good, and the Pippen trade was bad (though morally necessary). And those of you who agree that the Pippen trade was bad should agree, for many of the same reasons, that the Barkley trade was good.

 

Things like the pf we get for Horry and the belief for that we will definitely pass the first round with those guys are very subjective, and it's also not true as the fact is we didn't pass the first round with the guys you mentioned.

Well, if you mistake I was a girl or something like that it's up to you, frankly I don't give a damn to what you think about me.

 

Will,

I like how you look at things, but I have to amend your category 3 by adding the qualifier "for the team" to it.

Many may have considered CB the best overall player at the time, but why do you really need another low post presence who can't play defense on a team that already had the best low post man in the league at the time and that always won games through its tenacious D?

At the same time, we were a team that was weak at the PG. We started Kenny "The (cough, cough, hack!) Um . . . Jet" Smith for (insert the name of the deity of your choice)'s sake! We were in definite need of Cassell's skills.

Maybe some sort of trade was necessary at the time, but this wasn't it.

[This message has been edited by Launch Pad (edited December 07, 1999).]

 

Final Fantasy,

Woah, hey calm down there Final Fantasy. I didn't mean that as an insult. I've never met you, so I don't know what you look like, that's all. I apologize if I didn't make myself clear.

I have been crucified on another board, before for assuming that the person that I was talking to was male. She got pi$$ed, when I referred to her as a male, so I'm just a little gun-shy, when it comes to that sort of thing.

Once again, no insult intended.

 

LaunchPad,
I am basing my comment about Cassell being overrated on a career not 15-20 games. He is playing above himself but his out of control play does adapt well to the new style of play but the topic was more how the Rockets would have been with Cassell and that would not have been very good. For the record I did like Cassell and still do but while he does have a very good upside he also has some major deficencies. I know you are not saying this or maybe you are I really have not paid that close of attention to every part of this topic but it comes down to who would you rather have now Cassell or Francis. I personally would want Francis.

[This message has been edited by RocketSiv (edited December 08, 1999).]

 

LP -- We needed the boards, and we got them. (Never mind the Seattle problem.) And you could make the same argument against a PG upgrade that you've made against a PF upgrade: The Rockets' Hakeem-based system didn't require more from the PG position than a reliable entry pass and spot-up 3-point shooting.

I'm for upgrading whenever and wherever possible, as long as the players you're giving up can be replaced -- and I'd say we've now replaced them. If Cassell, Horry, Brown, and Bryant would have gotten us Steve Francis, I'd have made that trade, too.

 

Asking if we would rather have Francis over Cassell is really a hard question because we wouldn't know what the team would have done if the trade never happened, theoreticaly if the trade never happened we were in the NBA finals since we did not play Seattle, I am not basing this on anything other than final fantasy's argument and others who say that we brought in Charles to beat Seattle. The year we got swept was a fluke, I have said this too many times to count and I will say it until the day I die. ET was a huge because the next season we even lost Kenny Smith leaving us with Matt Maloney, the loss of Horry was also huge because at the time Horry was the best defensive small forward in the NBA, the only reason Horry does not get any Pt is because the Lakers wanted him to bulk up and become a PF in the Horace Grant mold but had he stayed in Houston he would have stayed at the 3(however it was unlikely both Cassel and Horry were going to stay anyways so a trade was going to happen eventualy with Horry the most likely candidate because of our lack there of of a Pg), Chucky Brown and Mark Bryant were both warriors in the paint and brought us some blue colar work every game. The comment about Willis coming here because of Barkley is constructed the same way as is defecation it comes basicaly from uranus. Willis had his worst year ever at GS the year before after a couple of sub-par years and basicaly was just looking for someone to just pick him up. The Rockets called and the rest was history. All in all we lost total chemistry with that deal which pretty much cost us the Jazz series, if it were not for Eddie Johnson (man it brought a tear to my eye the way he went out) we would have gotten destroyed by the Jazz. Barkley was brought in for media attention which translated in $$$$$ for Les. Les made more money in the year Barkley came over than the two championship years combined folks, and it wasn't just a coincidence, Barkley still had game at the time which in talent sense looked equal on paper but just would not work out on the court. If the Rockets were healthy against Seattle and they got swept then I would have been happy with the trade but the fact is they were not healthy, the only Healthy players we had at the time were Mack Horry Bryant and Brown the rest of the team had just came back from a surgery of some kind or another injury of sorts.

------------------
"We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day

 

RocketSiv,

"I am basing my comment about Cassell being overrated on a career not 15-20 games." No you are not. You are basing your opinion on the 1998-99 short season, when Cassell was hurt. In 97-98 he put up #s for a full season, identical to what he is doing now.

Scarface, you are exactly right about those injuries. I remember Clyde and Sammy especially being hurt. Still, the Sonics did destroy us that year. And getting Barkley helped us match up against them. But, we always used to make the Jazz our b**ch and since then they have regularly owned us.

 

RocketSiv,

I don't think that I can make a more cogent argument about Cassell's value, than SamCassel did a few posts later.

Will,

I totally agree that we needed rebounding, which is exactly why, I thought we should ship Horry for another PF. Also, if we still were able to land Willis, then the rebounding problem would have been solved also. Willis had the potential to be a monster on the boards, but he also knew his role and would not have demanded so many touches.

As for the PG an PF upgrades, at least we knew that Cassell fit well with the chemistry of the team. We had no such guarantee with Chuck.

Also, using the if we didn't make this trade, we wouldn't have Steve Francis argument relies way too much on hindsight. The Rockets have an excellent GMing staff, so you can't be sure what kind of players that they might have landed had the Barkley trade never gone down.

 

SamCassell:
I am not basing it on that. I am not basing it on injuries. I am basing it on overall game. I don't go around saying Hakeem has been overrated his whole career because he missed pretty much a whole season a couple of years ago and him being out this year. If you base it on chemistry you know he didn't promote chemistry in New Jersey always yelling at Callipari. Also Rockets insiders will tell you Hakeem did not care for his shot selection and felt he dominated the ball too much in Hakeem's prime. If you want to talk about shot selection you have to consider that as many clutch and well just plain, good, and smart shots he put up twice as many out of control shots. Also when was the last time you saw him play under control for the whole game. Not to mention defense. If he did not have Hakeem back in the day to funnel his player to for Hakeem to pick up the easy block, force him into a bad shot, or force a pass Cassell would have gotten burnt for 20-30 points nearly every night. Imagine if you have Willis at center instead of Hakeem. Cassell's man still scores a ton because Willis is not the defender Hakeem is.

 

Final Fantasy,

It's becoming increasingly obvious that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. Also, I think that you're beginning to take my criticisms of the Great Barkley a little personally as evidenced by calling my arguments "pathetic" and ending your tirade with the oh-so-open-minded "whatever...."

You assert that Barkley is a "creator and executor, he is an leader". Yeah, he's a creator of ticket sales, an executor of cute little sound bites for the media, and as for a leader . . . Well as long as he isn't a "role model". If you believe all of this about CB, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with my argument that he's a lousy defender. Furthemore, with Cassell's ppg and apg production these days, he would seem to fit all three of your categories as well.

As for my "pathetic" argument that a role player (like Harrington to use your example) would have been better for the team, I'm going to reiterate that Hakeem was still at the top of his game at this point and you got plenty of scoring from Drexler also. We didn't need scoring; we needed rebounding and defense. Chuck gave us the former, but weakened us in the latter. He also stripped our bench, making us a very shallow team.

Yes, we did make a run at the WCF and got sent home by a team that hadn't effectively beat us in years. And this had everything to do with the Mailman owning Sir Charles on both ends of the floor. And don't conveniently leave out the 2 first round exits in the 2 following years (that doesn't sound too much like chemistry to me).

 

Launch-

Sorry to step in here, but the one series with the Jazz was under control until Barkley got his arm hurt.

More importantly Cassell is a fine point guard, but Chuck will always be regarded as one the the greatest forwards of all time.

Again- We can't change the past. I bet 75% of the people thought the Barkley trade was great when it occurred. If you're in the minority that's great- it really doesn't matter what anybody thinks now. It would be nice to hear what people thought at the time of the trade vs what they are saying now, but I don't think there is any way to make this happen.

 

Sherlock,

I am responding to your original post, so I'm sorry if I'm a little behind the curve.

1."We could have made the Jason Kidd trade instead."

I am aware of no trade involving the Rockets for Jason Kidd at that time. Therefore, it really doesn't make much sense to say "we could have had this guy" This isn't really an either this guy or that guy debate.

2."We'd still have Cassell."

This really gets to the crutch of the argument. Should we have made the trade? Well, looking at the players involved, Cassell has been the only one to do anything since the trade (sorry Horry and Chucky Brown fans) of any consequence. So if you look at it from a starting point guard or Charles Barkley perspective then I think we got the best end of the deal. As far as Cassell is concerned, I have never been a big Cassell fan. There has to be a reason why he has been with so many teams since we traded him. And contrary to popular belief we would not have Francis if we still had Cassell. In fact, I think it would be horrific to see two players who dominate the basketball in the same backcourt.

3."We'd still have Clyde Drexler. I believe he retired early due to Barkley."

I happen to agree with you here as a Barkley detractor, but I also happen to believe that Clyde really left the game at the right time. I'd much rather see someone leave one year too early than one year too late. A Clyde in 1999-2000 might not be much better than a Shandon Anderson in the long run.


4. "We'd still have Robert Horry."

I think the prevailing wisdom after the 1994-95 Finals (that Horry was a poor man's Pippen) is certainly ironic. Both seemed to have an allergic reaction when you wanted them to step up on a consistent basis. I think the fact that we could have had Horry and Glen Rice and didn't want it says all we need to know.

5."I understood our primary reason for getting Chuck was for rebounding and muscle to get past Kemp and Seattle..... I think we should have kept Willis, instead."

This is the one place where I will have to agree. I think it almost always foolish to make a MAJOR move to beat one team. However, I think your history is a little spotty. Willis came with Barkley, so whether or not we kept him has little to do with this debate. For the record, I was and am still for the Willis trade. Drew has turned out to be a solid backup guard and we still have Detroit's pick from the Turcan trade. Even if Drew and Turcan are considered busts, the idea of getting that many first round picks for an aging player is still sound.




------------------
Rockets When? Rockets When?

 

4Chuckie,

Your insight and opinions are welcome, so you don't have to apologize for stepping in.

With that said, it's true that CB hurt his arm in the Utah series. It's also true that he had back problems when he was with Phoenix (how many times has he "considered retirement"?). This, however, brings about another point: Chuck has been just about as injury prone as some believe that Cassell is. Over the last three years since the trade, Chuck has played a total of 181 games and Cassell has played 162. Keeping in mind that this number is seriously skewed by an injury that kept him out almost all of last season, that's only a difference of 19 games (or a little over 6 games/season not factoring in the present one).

The difference is Cassell will not be retiring next year (or for a few years to come).

BTW I did not like the CB trade when it happened, because I thought that we gave up way to much on a team that wasn't that deep to begin with.

 

Rocketsiv, I don't remember ET and coach Cal fighting, but I never heard him making trouble in his other stops. And Cal was a bad coach anyway - that's why he got run.

As for the out-of-control shots, I think I know what you are talking about. But Smilin' Sam doesn't take Maxwell-type distance heaves - the ones that make you cringe are those crazy slashes to the hoop when he takes these bizarre shot attempts. But the craziest thing is, that he makes those shots. 47% is solid shooting.

But most of all, he is a winner. With him in 97-98, the Nets made the playoffs. Last year (and this season) without him, they are terrible (19 - 49 the last 2 seasons). Meanwhile, the Bucks have been solid, if not spectacular.

 

Launch-
I know you're right about CBs injuries. He's missed at least 10-15 games each year (maybe played 68-70 one season at the most).
G/luck arguing your point, I know many of my fellow Barkley fans are also die hards, so they will argue all day long. I disagree with you, but at least you make a good argument.