I wouldn't be surprised if this topic has been covered before but I've never seen anyone else's opinion on this. Plus, I think anything would be a nice change from all the "Can we trade Walt+Cato for (insert random Center here)" and "Dan Fegan is the corn in the AntiChrist's crap" threads. I was thinking how well the 1996-1997 Rockets might have done if they had never traded for Barkley, but had all the other key players that year. Now I was a huge Barkley fan but just the same, can you imagine this starting lineup: C - Hakeem Olajuwon PF - Kevin Willis SF - Robert Horry SG - Clyde Drexler PG - Sam Cassell Add to this a bench that would have included Matt Bullard, Mario Elie, Chucky Brown, Mark Bryant, Othello Harrington and Brent Price and you have what seem to me is a pretty balanced and dangerous team. Every starter is capable of scoring 20+ points (not that they'd average that) and three of them (Horry and Willis excluded) could create their own shot. All the starters except for Cassell are good to excellent defenders and Hakeem and Horry would have given us good shot-blocking. Our bench gives us a good combination of hustle (Brown, Othella), toughness(Bryant), 3-point shooting (Price, Bullard) and a player who gave all three and might have been a potential 6th man (Elie). Now this team would have had problems passing the ball (Cassell was not yet the complete PG he late became) which would have made them easy prey (yet again) for a Seattle/Karl-style scrambling defense. However, remember that Seattle went through severe problems that year due to the Karl/Payton conflicts and Kemp's jealousy over McIlvane's huge contract. So while they would have been a threat, they might not have been as successful as they were in 1995-1996. And I also think the Rockets could have beaten any other WC team in a series. Just an opinion - what do the rest of you think?
Can you imagine that lineup being swept by Seattle the year before? Oh, that's right, Willis would correct all that? Can you imagine Barkley's lineup going 21-2 to start the season? Can you imagine a bear hug at 30 feet out from the basket by Malone on Drexler in the final 5 seconds being ignored by the refs?
If the big 3 had stayed healthy there is no question that they could have played with the Bulls. But they were rarely on the floor at the same time. Willis really stepped up the following year, taking Barkley's starting role. It is possible that Willis was all we needed to beat the Sonics, Cassell was not that great 5 years ago but he does make Maloney look like a joke. Which he was. The Barkley memories are priceless though.
Can you imagine actually reading my entire post before spouting off like I insulted your mother. I agreed that Seattle would have given us problems but I also noted that Seattle in 96-97 was not nearly as good as they were in 95-96 due to internal problems. And Willis was definitely a step up at PF (especially on the defensive end) from Chucky Brown, who was more of an off-the-bench SF. Finally, Cassell would have handled Payton's defense much better than Maloney (even you have to admit that). Maloney hit his open shots (and very well too) but needed Drexler to bring up the damn ball because of Payton's defense. Cassell would not have had such trouble. Maybe the summer doldrums are making you cranky. Take a Pamprin and cheer up some .
Of course, it shouldn't have come down to that illegal play by the Jazz. The Rockets blew a freaking 13 point lead with five minutes left. One of the greatest chokes of all-time.
i totally agree with you sub. Willis came for free. Barkley cost us bryant, cassell, horry and the Great Chucky Brown (who schooled Barkley just the year before). I've always hated that trade. Cassell ended up being traded for Jason Kidd!!! what did we end up getting for barkley, just some funny soundbites. Maybe we could have beat the bulls w/ Dream, Clyde and Charles if healthy, i dont know. but i think we would have had a better chance with Dream, Clyde, Willis, Horry, Cassell, and the Great Chucky Brown.
"Cassell ended up being traded for Jason Kidd!!!" While I am actually in agreement that we should have stood pat and not done the Barkley trade, the above statement is not really a great indicator of how great Cassell was and how we should have kept him. I am sure Michael Finley had something to do w/ the Mavs pulling the trigger on that one!!!
The Barkley trade was not bad for the Rockets. Charles was the best player on the team during his time here. Why do you think they had the whole left block problem. If Hakeem was better than Barkley, as the established star of the team he would have been able to claim that spot as his. Barkley's dominance pushed him out. Hakeem ended his prime around the 1996 season,and his game started to slide quickly downhill. Barkley's downfall was much more gradual because so much of his game was mental. He could outthink his opponents down low, hence a dominant 6'4" PF. Just taking a look at the '96 season should demonstrate the need for the Barkley trade. Also, when Barkley took on the 6th man role, it was not like he rode the pine ala Damn Lanky. He still got major minutes and contributed to the team alot. If he did not tear a bicept in the Utah series, Houston would have three championships, IMHO. If any trade should be discussed as going the other way, it is the Dream to Toronto trade of several years ago.
Can you imagine Willis's line-up going 21-2 to start the season? Can you imagine the Rocket's winning the second ring after kicking Maxwell off the team right before the playoffs....talk about internal strife? Can you imagine LA going 15-1 last year in the playoffs after midseason rivalries with Kobe and Shaq and Jackson (not to mention Ryder)? Can we imagine the defending Western Conf champs Seattle playing top ball against Barkley's lineup in the playoffs? I think the answer to the last one is a bigger "Yes" than the others! Now, cut out the trump card that I'm getting all cranky, and discuss this amongst yourself.
Hakeem was 1st team All-NBA in '97, and 2nd team All-Defense. I'd say that made him the best player on the Rockets.
heyricecrispee, i noticed your suddenly cumulative post count and your rapid aging. how on earth did you do that?
Don't ask. I feel worse than a loser. Carrying around a losers moniker with heypee's history attached to it makes me feel like a loser who doesn't know how to lose.
Willis choked in the playoffs in 1997 after having a fine regular season. It is no sure thing he would have been "the last piece" when all the marbles were down. Also, if he was such a good defensive player don't you think Rudy would have had him on Malone (though I have never figued out why he didn't try Hakeem more 1 on 1 on Malone with Barkley playing OShaqTBag???). Barkley was instrumental in us finally being able to handle the Sonics. Against the Sonics he was our best player. Against Utah and some other teams, Hakeem was the best player. But make no mistake, the Hakeem of 97 was not the player he was in 94. In 94 he was always the best player on the court-- against whomever individual player he was matched with and regardless which team he faced, that simply was not the case by 97. Drexler had a lot of his game deteriorate by 97 as well, otherwise he would have got us through Seattle the year before when Hakeem was totally taken out of his game. By getting Barkley we tried to use 3 declining once great players to create enough match-up problems, it just didn't quite work. The strategy would have at least got us to the NBA finals had we gotten some playoff proven FA 1 like Derick Harper instead of the brittle Brent Price. Maloney did his job well for his ability but because of a little bad luck, or lack of foresight--depending on your perspective, we were just too exploitable at one position.
Can you imagine "Breadbasket" Barkley rotating out on "flash" Stockton like a giant land turtle crosses a sandy beach? I CAN!
Hmmm, now THIS is heypocricy. All that bellowing about "who cares about losing the post count, etc" and now look at what you have become........ You are no better than....errr......ME!!!
The 21-2 argument hardly holds water, crispee. Mainly because it was meaningless in light of our failure to beat the Jazz. But also because the Rockets compiled a 22-1 start to the season prior to getting Barkley (with a lineup including Olajuwon-Thorp-Horry-Maxwell-Smith). Replace Smith with Cassell, Maxwell with Drex, and Thorp with Willis, and I don't see how the lineup would have been any worse. But there's no guarantee that Willis would've player here without Barkley's presence. He stated at the time that CB4 was the reason he came to Houston. We would have had a hard time winning another title with the Chucky Brown/Pete Chilcutt combo at power forward.
That was THREE seasons prior. 93-94 <--- 22-1 start 94-95 <--- miserable first half, glorious trade, unbelievable playoffs 95-96 <--- back to mediocrity with no playoff drive and swept by Seattle 96-97 <--- big trade produces 21-2 start. Luck had something to do with the two championships, all players admit to a few breaks/calls to make it through that many elimination games. Just a few. Not much, but just a little. In 96-97, Barkley brought us back to competing big-time in the league again, but the breaks went Utah's way....in the form of a bear hug. And don't tell me that is meaningless, or ... or .... I'll call you cranky for losing Sam Cassell like I insulted your mother. imo, the 21-2 start was a sign of competitive drive. Barkley woke up that team, just like Drexler's trade did. btw SamCassell: your scenario is a big "what if." How does that compare in meaning to my real point and claim that Barkley brought us the 21-2, and woke us up to compete? You can't throw out a "what if" player-swapping sega genesissyfying point to get around discussing the meanings of real history!
