Oh, and it got us to game 6 of the western conference finals, somewhere I would wager we would not have been standing pat with Horry and Cassel. Did the Barkley trade bring a title? No. But I think it was the right move at the time. It was a situation where the Rockets core, that would be Drexler and Olajuwon, were aging fast and the window of opportunity was closing. A 4-0 sweep in the second round of the playoffs was proof that that group's best days were probably behind them. If the franchise stuck with Cassel and Horry I think the team would have been good, but not contenders so they made the same decision I would have made. Go for it all right now because championship shots don't come to franchises like Houston every year.
Why do people think that because we traded for Barkley, we compromised being able to beat Seattle, but not Utah? The fact is, we were getting beat soundly by Seattle. An addition of Kevin Willis would have meant jack. We got swept by Seattle the season before, and Kevin Willis wasn't effective against Shawn Kemp at all in the 1997 series. If we would have kept our team intact with the sole addition of Willis, we wouldn't have beaten Utah. When we beat them in the 1995 playoffs, we were down 2-1 in the series and were also losing by double digits with two minutes remaining in the decisive game 5. We were a Utah choke job away from getting knocked out of the playoffs in the 1st round as defending World Champs. We barely beat them in 1995. We had a little luck on our side. Those are the facts. Utah was also a much better team in 1997. And we were one choke job away by the Rockets/Clyde Drexler from taking Utah to game 7. Trading for Charles Barkley was one of the greatest things this franchise has ever done. I really did enjoy the Barkley era. The 1996-1997 season was one of the funnest seasons ever as a Rockets fan. Starting out the season like gangbusters. Having the whole town talking about whether we would get 70 wins that season. With the big 3, they delivered time and time again in crunch time against teams. Hearing the buzz about possibly matching up with the Bulls in the Finals. We were so close. And that buzz was so intoxicating. The last six championships in the mother of all NBA Finals. Dream vs. Jordan. Clyde vs. Pippen. Barkley vs. Rodman. We were soooooooo damn close! And we choked. Clyde jacked up the shot with too much time left!!!!!!!!!! Back to the subject. Seattle knocked us out of the playoffs in 1987,1988, 1993, and 1996. That's 4 straight times that we matched up and 2 of those defeats weren't even competitive. Beating the Sonics was almost like a championship. It was the 3rd most gratifying series win for me other than our two champhionship series' wins.
Oh yeah, and FREAKING Robert Horry. Why are Rockets fans so damn obsessed with that guy? He has FAILED to average 10 ppg for a season since his second year in the league. Just because he hit some big shots doesn't discount from the fact that he does NOT show up for 90% of all games play during a season. Cassell was missed. Horry was not. Even during our championship season, there were whole series when he didn't really show up. Utah in 1994 and 1995, minimal impact. Suns in 1994 and 1995, minimal impact. Portland in 1994, minimal impact. Knicks in 1994, minimal impact. So basically, he showed up for the Spurs in 1995 and the Magic in 1995, with the Magic series representing to pinnacle of his career. Cassell was the man. Horry was the enigma, who we kept trying to trade every year. First for Pippen in 1994. Then for Elliot in 1994. Finally we got rid of him for Barkley. Don't get me wrong, I love Horry. But to be honest, most of his time in Houston, I was pulling my hair out because of him, instead of cheering him. I loved him though. Hitting a couple of big shots will do that for you.
I didn't enjoy the Barkley era. I felt early on that Barkley did not have good chemistry with either Drexler or Hakeem. And then Drexler retiring early because of it sucked. Would we have won without making the trade?? I don't know, but I think we underestimated how good a player Cassell could be.
Oh yeah and Cassell! The guy didn't really start blossoming until the 2000-2001 season with the Bucks. So basically, he got traded from the Suns to the Mavs to the Nets because he was inconsistent and unpredictable. By 2000-2001, when Cassell was finally a big time player, we would have a 39 year old Drexler and a 38 year old Dream. We weren't going to win anything of significance. If we aren't going to win BIG, then everything else really doesn't matter. Barkley was a good trade.
How do we know Cassell wouldn't have blossomed earlier had he not changed teams a couple of times? Maybe he would have figured it out earlier. Like I said, maybe we wouldn't have won anyways. But I didn't like the trade in retrospect because Barkley didn't have good chemistry with Hakeem or Drexler.
If you guys remember, the original trade proposal DID NOT involve Cassell... Horry, however, was always supposed to be shipped out. Had there been a clutchcity.net bbs back then, there would be close to 1 billion TRADE ROBERT HORRY threads... he frustrated the HELL out of everyone in 1996, especially since he had shown so much promise in the 95 playoffs. Somewhere along the way, the Suns probably forced the Rockets to involve Cassell, seeing that a Barkley for Horry + scrubs trade was in no way close to being even. Also, I still feel that Hakeem/Clyde had a little more say in this deal... Sam (while he hit countless big shots) refused to a.) play defense, b.) was often injured in 96, and c.) seemed to succeed by taking several shots. That style suits him now, because he's supposed to take many shots... but back then, if Hakeem and Clyde weren't the first options on the play... you had a problem. Barkely brought a.) much needed rebounding, b.) another viable scoring option, and c.) a mental toughness to this team. He shook things up... gave everybody a sense of urgency again. Had it not been for HIS injury, that team would have won well over 60 games, and probably would have secured home-court in the Utah series (which was probably not the deciding factor, but oh well...). And, how can you guys say it set the franchise back?!? Those teams were built on ONE primary player... Hakeem. Everybody knew that when his skills eroded, this would no longer be an elite team... end of story.
I understand Clyde (because of the off-court stuff), but why are you saying he didn't have good chemistry with Hakeem? If that's the case, name a player Barkley DID have good chemistry with? Bottom line: He never disrupted the offense (Clyde and Hakeem still took most of the shots, and did most of the scoring), he worked his ass off at rebounding, and he won games for us. Chemistry is one thing... talent is something else. Barkley provided a much needed surge of power to a finese team, and the results for 97 proved he was effective.
This is why we traded for Tracy McGrady: so we could start winning championships in the present and stop whining and pining like a bunch of old men about championships of the past.
even if we didnt trade him for barkley he would have been traded for someone else, i mean there was just a different breed of point guard on the way
i would like to thank the people that remember how our Rockets couldn't get pass the Sonics until we got Barkley. And saying that the Jazz had our number? Yea they had our number...Malone had #4 wrapped around all right.
he had someone wrapped up. that's all i know.... point is, if that stockton shot didn't go down, we probly would have faced Jordan and Co in the finals. And then win or lose, Rockets fans wouldn't looked back on the Barkley trade as a mistake. And I would bet that we would have beaten the Bulls...but that's always saved for another day in another thread
Some great responses to this thread here. But there was a premise for that trade that's not been mentioned: it was all about what Dream had left. The idea was we had maybe one or two years left to win another championship with one of the greatest players ever. It didn't work, but it was all about Dream and not Barkley's persona: that's always attacked. And if you don't think we (especially Les) didn't owe him that in '97-'98 you're crazy. I realize Sam doesn't understand that, and I miss him. But he won 2 championships his first two years, and he hadn't suffered through 30 years of Houston sports history. Rocket River I love the apparent fact you're omniscient and so fascinated with how Houstonian's think in your posts. I suppose we're honored.
that's true. I think we saw that the window of opportunity was closing for Dream and the rockets so we had to make that Trade. He was still one of the best players in the League, but he was no where near as invincible as he was during our championship run. Honestly, I was never disappointed with the Barkley trade. A lot of people hate him and think he's lazy and what not, but you can't tell me that he didn't play hard for us when he WASN'T injured. He gave us that 'edge' and that swagger...basically he gave the Rockets team a personality. It's just sad that Holy acts (i.e. Utah's shot) and egos clashing that couldn't get that team over the hump because, even though the team was subpar after our Big 3, we had the Bulls' number that year.
Agreed... I posted this before, and I'll do it again... Those teams were solely going to go only as far as Hakeem could eventually take them, no matter who else was playing with him. Everybody knew that when his skills eroded, this would no longer be an elite team... end of story. Will... we are now old men, thus let us be grumpy and reflect . That's what happens when the internet gets older, and the years since a championship get longer, etc. etc. Also, even though it would be great to say it was Stockton's shot that stood in the way of us and the finals, I'm still not so sure the Rockets would have won game 7 in Utah. They looked horrible in games 1 and 2 there, looked a little better in game 5 (but I always had the feeling that Utah was toying with us that game, and could have blown us out again if they wanted to), and the Jazz had also held solid leads in each of the three games in Houston. The Jazz were probably better than people are giving them credit for (not suprising... credit/Jazz should never be in the same sentence here), and they always had matched up well with Houston over the years. The only difference in this series was that one of their players was finally able to rise to the occasion when they had a chance to win. You figured it had to happen sooner or later for that team: 1995 - choked to Houston in the first round. 1996 - took Seattle to game 7, overtime, of the western conference finals... probably could have won that series if they got a couple of breaks. 1997 - got the breaks they needed... beat houston.
To add to that, a Jazz fan can look at the same series and say, "Damn, if Eddie Johnson didn't hit that huge last second prayer of a shot at the end of game 4, we could have ended this series in 5."
When Eddie Johnson hit the shot, the game was only tied. So the worse case is overtime. Missing the shot would not have meant a loss.
