I have heard some interesting names bantered about in trade rumors or as comebacks when evaluating the trades the Rockets have made. As a visionary, I would like to introduce two rules when evaluating any trade before it happens. 1. The Maxwell Rule This of course was inspired by former Rocket Vernon Maxwell. The acquisition of Maxwell was arguably the greatest trade in Rockets history (Maxwell for cash). However, one can look around the NBA and see players of similar ilk who are more expensive than Maxwell (Derrick Coleman, Latrell Sprewell, Isiah Rider ect). This is where Maxwell becomes our guide. The argument for acquiring a player like this is that their talent is just too much to pass up. While this helps when everything is going well, these players have serious personality flaws that hurt you when things aren't going well. For Maxwell, it was bailing on the team in the middle of the playoffs. A hard lesson learned. 2. The Barkley Rule This comes from the theory of "Rottissierie Basketball". Ideally, anytime you can get a great player your team will automatically become better. Personally, I must admit I was for the Barkley trade when it occurred and the three of the four players we traded for him have made little impact in the NBA since. However, what this fails to recognize is that basketball is a game where chemistry is extremely important where great players are only great if they make the players around him better. Therefore, the Barkley trade is an important lesson in this regard. While Barkley continues to put up numbers and while he continues to put forth great effort on the court, his style of play does not mesh with the other players on the court. So, we can't look at the Barkley trade as a starting point guard and three scrubs trade. We have to look at as goodbye Clyde Drexler, Mario Elie, and Scottie Pippen trade. Kind of expensive when you ask me. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
What a great post. Re: the Barkley Principle, it's almost like a team's success "varies inversely" to the number of superstars it acquires. With one or two superstars, a team can be an effective championship contender. Adding a third superstar seems more likely to harm a team than help it. I know the Lakers and Celtics in the 1980s were highly successful, but their respective third cogs (James Worthy and Robert Parish) weren't superstars of the caliber of a Barkley or Pippen IMHO. What other teams can we apply this principle to?
Exactly right on the Barkley rule. Nice historical angle, you hit the "expensive" nail on the head. Might Drexler still be playing? Maybe so. You are about to get bombarded by Barkley extremists in a few minutes. . . CBrownFanClub
So anyone who stands up for Barkley is now an extremist, huh? Well does that therefore make you a "Barkley anti-extremist"? Interesting...... ------------------ When a man stands for nothing, he'll fall for anything.
Barzilla- Maybe a third rule is a team that lives and dies with aging veterans, trying to win an improbable championship (or being too loyal to trade them) will go through a long rebuilding process. See the great team of the 80's (Celtics with Bird, McHale, Pistons with Isiah, Laimbeer, Vinny, Dumars, Sixers with Dr. J, Mo Cheeks). The exception appears to be Lakers who never slid as far as the other 3, but did have a few years of Non-Championship ball. Could another rule also be that super-star veterans can't win if they are not from the same organization? David-Duncan have always been Spurs, MJ & Scottie were Bulls from the start, All the Celtics-Lakers-Pistons, and Clyde-Dream had a history in college. Although I like these rules, obviously I don't blame Charles for the Rockets not winning additional rings. Remember at the time the Rockets primarily were needing to beat the Jazz/Seattle in the West and the Bulls in the east. What did they have in common. A good, athletic PF (Malone, Kemp, Rodman). Charles came relatively cheaply (it seemed) by not giving up a nucleous and this improved the one area that appeared to be our biggest weakness at the time.
Mario Elie and Scottie Pippen can kiss my ass! As to Clyde Drexler, you are getting things reversed, if Drexler can cope with Hakeem, he should be able to cope with CB's play. Furthermore, he should be benefitted more from CB's play than Hakeem's as CB is a better passer, and he can play transition game with Drexler. Also, Drexler scored a lot of points off CB's offensive boards, as CB single handedly turned the Rocks into a strong rebounding team. The "CB's style doesn't mesh with other player" argument is full of water. We got CB to beat the Sonics and we did, some guys forgot that we have been swept with the great Hakeem and Drexler in 96. CB got the job done and if there was no injuries in 97, we might have gotten another trophy. People forget things real fast.
I like your post , Barkley extremist?? that's a classic! it does make sense when u think about it , I personally was not too much in favor of aquiring him due to his personality , I felt that he would create conflicts within the team and eventually players would leave us because of it and to my own discontentment, I was right ! I personally felt that the chemistry that we had w/the guys that left was just too special to let it go ! Can u imagine Cassell and Horry on our team in '99 ?? what kind of chemistry do you guys think they would have by now ? it would be awsome ! they were practically joined at the hip when they were here , Mario more than likely would still be here and maybe (big maybe) Clyde would still be playing ! Chucky and Clyde had great chemistry too , can't forget that ! all in all the way to look at it is ... Has it been fun w/CB ? a big resounding YES but has it been worth it ?(Clyde , Pip and Ellie) that is where the question lies !
Barkley Semantics: People who defend Barkley with phrases like "not so bad for team chemistry as people think" or "has some downside, I'll admit" are Barkley Apologists. People who have takes like "the Barkley era Rockets are way better than the Championship era Rockets" and "Sir Charles is heart and soul of this franchise" and "the mainstream media is too hard on Charles" and "anyone who thinks the man has any downside is stupid" is a Barkley Extremist. People who think the Rockets franchise took a turn for the worse when they traded away Chucky Brown and three others for an admittedly funny, intermittently committed, chunky three point specialist who hits 20% beyond the arc but can still rebound are called Rocket Historians. I wonder if we could get some of Barkley's quotes around the time of the trade, about working with Clyde, making a championship his only goal, etc. Happy CBFC bashing, Barkley Extremists, see you on Ricki Lake! CBrownFanClub [This message has been edited by CBrownFanClub (edited December 01, 1999).]
CBFC- There are many people who are extreme Barkley fans (myself included), but as stated before it seemed like a trade the Rockets needed to make. The Sonics/Jazz and Bulls all had an advantage at the PF position. Houston could bet CB4 for a group of "role" players. They could have (at the time) one of the top 2 PF's in the league to go along with the best C and a future HOF guard. In hindsight it wasn't a good trade, but at the time the Rockets organization thought it was an opportunity. I still think it was a wise move, and if I was calling the shots for the Rockets I would have done it as well. It is easy to criticize the move now, and you may have at the time, but let me ask you did you criticze the move because it involved Chucky Brown or did you know at the time the the Rockets would not make it back to the championship?
Wow 4chuckie- I am really flattered that you asked me - er - us, that. You know if you join the c brown fan club you would barely have to change your handle. . . Actually, we at the Cbrownfanclub were in hysterics at the time because of the CBrown situation, no doubt. It coulda been Jordan and we woulda been pissed. But we were also opposed before we knew of Chucky's involvement - a last minute development - as well. From a personnel standpoint, it seemed like a bad idea for one word: defense. The Rox were built on defense, and Barkley's prowess on that end was. . well, up for debate then and now. (To be an apologist for a second, he gets an overly bad rap for that sometimes). Still, Cassell could play serious D, as could Chucky and Mark Bryant. I mean, I know the CBFC sees the world through Brown colored glasses, but in all seriousness, Chucky brings it to the defensive end all night long every night.(cite: Hakeem's book) Underrated in the whole affair was Robert Horry. Bad body language, inconsistent shooting, admitted, but that guy could play Defense. Still does - its the only reason he has a job right now. We already had scorers - Hakeem and CLyde - and rebounding was NOT the reason we brought in Barkley. I thought it was because we had stars in our eyes and wanted to make our systme fit SIr Charles, rather than thinking calmly and politely declining. Like "we won rings, let's get some famous guys in here to show we were no fluke." I dont belive the Drexler/Tomjanovich line at the time - "the chance at a 50 greatest player is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity you should never pass up." Nah. Never trade young guys for old ones, thats a better theory. Cbrownfanlub
Damn, I'm sure glad the rockets won back to back championships, ya know ? Charles Barkley is NOT the reason we haven't gone back to the dance. Yes, sometimes he's the biggest bonehead on the floor, but unless my mind is completely gone, I remember the team sitting up by about 16 points, with a one game edge, on Utah, when some slug on the Jazz craked him. Until that moment Barkley was RULING the boards, and it was clear the ROckets were in charge of the series. Without the Chuckster we bit the dust. ANd wasn't it the year before, or the same, when we played Seattle, we couldn't beat them till Barkley showed up, and lo and behold, we ruled the boards, our greatest weakness against Seattle. Now, in the last year of his very superior career, is no time to low blow him. He's making a great effort to start Francxis off on the right foot, and I predict his guidance will pay off for many years to come. He even realizes that this team isn't going anywhere any time soon, but still is putting in the kind of effort that makes our house hold jump for joy. ( YOu should see my mother in law , shakin in her wheel chair, " Oh Charles", she's from Burmingham ...: ).. Do you think Scottie Pippen would even take the time to do any of those things ? The slimey creep. [This message has been edited by jscmedia (edited December 01, 1999).]
the slug from the Jazz who injured Chuckster was Antoine "Big Dog" Carr we would have won that game and thus won the series 4 sure we were 8th seed but I felt our chance was still there I really liked our chemistry with Barkley off the bench Willis starting and slidin to center Drexler was better than Pippen is even though the Glyde was on his way down at age 36 Charles showed heart though even with a hernia Barkley was breaking down the Jazz offensively and even putting up good D on an injury free Malone. We still get great play from Dream and Barkley but they need to be de-emphasized I think Barkley accepts this new role very constructively but Dream is still very full of pride and wants to lead the team this season his 16th in scoring he maybe could but he needs to lead with D 1st and foremost while showing Cato how to get it done. ------------------ ***Elie... we don't need no stinkin Elie Mobley's takin over ROCKETS IN 2000 BABY***
If being a CB fan is an "extremest", then count me in. I like his leadership, his hustle, his rebounding ability, his hard-nosed approach to the game, his honesty and outspoken attitude. Just like many of you like Francis for his style, as well as Dream, anderson, et al. Charles is not a shooter like Rogers, but he will always outrebound Carlos. He's won't remind you of a Stockton, but he makes some great passes in the most unexpected moments. Give him an inch and he'll stuff a putback. Does anyone realize what a tremendous accomplishment it is for him to be one of the leading rebounders in the NBA? He gives anywhere from 4-10 inches in heighth and 10-15 years in age to his opposite number every game, and almost always outplays them on the boards. He's the best 6'4" 35 year-old in the League. Rodman knows how to rebound like CB, but rarely scores; others can score tons of points but can't help the team on the boards. IMHO, he is the team leader, and the youngsters wiuld do well to listen to him (and follow his example).
CB fan or not, the biggest reason we haven't gone to the finals again is the lack of a true point guard--we lost Sam Cassell and who did we replace him with? It was a mistake on the managements' part to underestimate the contributions of Egghead, both offensive and defensive, who although wild did a great job of penetrating, directing and relieving the pressure off the big men. He matched up well with the other point guards in the west as well. ------------------ Gene Peterson on the highpoint of the Rox' 14 victory season...
Chucky Brown Fan Club I think it’s a little silly to dwell on the Charles Barkley trade right now, because right now is exactly when everyone new we’d want those players back. Rudy knew that when Barkley got old, and when Hakeem got old, and when Clyde got old we would rebuild, where as if we kept all those younger players we wouldn’t have to go through rebuilding. That’s why it’s called a gamble. The simple fact is that Rudy rolled the dice and came up with nothing. But just because it didn’t work didn’t mean it was a bad idea at the time. We won a championship in 95 with that same type of gamble. We had no chance of winning with the old team. With Charles, at least at first, we did. We looked good, and as a matter of fact we had the Utah Jazz on their heels a couple of seasons back before Antione “Fat Fouler” Carr ripped CB’s tricep (props to jscmedia's earlier post). Rudy did give us a shot at the title, but luck put us out. Luck is part of this game. Yes, if we had kept those players we would be above .500, but we wouldn’t have had a chance since 95. At least there was some hope of a championship for a couple of years. The worst trade the Rockets have ever made is definitely passing up Rice and Horry earlier this year to opt for the Portland scrubs. Chucky BrownFC, the Barkley situation is not to blame. The fact is Barkley is here, he’s put in his seasons, he is a Rocket.
We actually only gave up Sam Cassel for Charles Barkley. Mark Bryant, Chucky Brown and Robert Horry are just ordinary expendable role players, I personally think that is a very good deal. Sam was injured in the next season he got traded, played only 8 games of that season, and that injury was only a sprained ankle, he is quite fragile in my opinion. Besides, we have Steve Francis now, he will be better than Cassel sooner or later. What we did is just what the Portland did, trading quantity for quality for a shot at the title.The Barkley trade was a smart investment, it brought a lot more fans to the Rockets family, but as fromobile said, the luck was not on the Rockets' side.
That team that got swept by the Sonics barely limped to the playoffs, Elie had just gotten surgery and had only 10 or so games under his belt as did Cassell, Dream was injured for a little while at the end of the season and the only healthy Rocket at the time was Robert Horry. That year was a fluke getting swept by the sonics would have never happened had we been healthy. For the people thinking that the Jazz improved as a team after we got Barkley, thats a bunch of BS, those Jazz teams that we beat were better overall teams then they are now, simply because the nucleus was a little younger. They still had their 60 win teams and we just spanked them everytime in the playoffs. To the people Barkley lovers.... get in touch with your inner self block all those Barkley posters you had in your rooms, and clear your mind. Now think back to when you first started watching Charles on Philly. He caused problems on the team then, now look back to his Phoenix days it was all good until they lost then it was finger pointing time, and after the damage was done he doesn't want to play for the Collangelo any more, now fast-forward to now. We aquire Barkley just one full year after winning the NBA finals for a second time, we had a good ball club still, and they all play great we were second in the league to only Jordans Bulls after the first 20 or so games until injuries hit us and of course we lose a couple of games and are a still ballclub but we don't have that great of a record something like the 4-5 seed. We beat the lakers and almost beat the Jazz. Already we are hearing that Barkley and Clyde don't get a long, now next season Clydes contract is up, as is Elie's. Instead of signing back with the Rockets, Drexler leaves to coach U of H and Mario goes to the evil spurs. Had Barkley kept his big mouth shut both would still be on this team and we would have aquired someone other than Pippen. All in all you can't knock Cb4's game that has always been there, but if the man could just keep his mouth shut he would have had at least one ring by now. I admit I have never liked Charles as a man but always admired his game, but I never wanted him on my team, much the same as a Penny Hardaway or a Rodman people who perform well but cause too many problems in the lockeroom. To my man Fro... I agree with you that with Charles we have been unlucky on the court, but you forget that with those same players with the exception of Mark Bryant(who played admirably for an injured dream a year earlier) we won a title, once we broke up that team we were done. We had a great starting lineup but then our bench was gone. Plus losing Cassell at the time was a huge loss since we had only Baloney at the time. Cassell was not injured the year we traded him, he was injured last year. Umm my righting sucks so please excuse my lack of the american language. ------------------ "We need to fockass".....Dream back in the day [This message has been edited by Scarface (edited December 01, 1999).] [This message has been edited by Scarface (edited December 01, 1999).]
gotta chip in.... if you take these qualities: 1) scoring 2) hustle 3) intensity (passion) 4) rebounding 5) passing 6) intelligence and put all the rockets to the test, barkley comes out either #1 or #2 (next to francis). now, you may not like what he says on or off the court, but between the two hoops, he leaves his heart on the court. he is, without a doubt, dennis rodman with scoring ability. how can you complain? he is the only reason we broke a 16 game losing streak to the sonics. or have you forgotten that? yes, bark's defense is atrocious. he may be the main culprit of the players when it comes to not defending the pick & roll (he doesn't cut the guard off), but for what he brings to the court, i'll grudgingly accept that. yet, there are players like matt bullard - the epitome of a one dimensional player - who play the whole damn fourth quarter. yea, he may hit 2 or 3 threes, but his freakin drawer are on fire from getting burned on defense. let's see, i scored 9 points on 3 of 7 threes, and i gave up 12 points on 6 layups or wide open jumpers. sounds like a good tradeoff to me. listen, i see huge faults in barkley. no doubt. but i see a passion in him that makes a team play hard. take him off the rox and see how far we fall. try 0 and 15. no kidding. that said, if he takes one more 3 pointer in the fourth quarter, i'm going to kick him in that round mound ass of his.
Final Fantasy, As far as Clyde Drexler is concerned I can go to the horses mouth. He said himself on the radio that he and Charles have always been friends off the court, but he just couldn't cope with his on court style. Not all post players are created equal. Hakeem typically makes his move or makes the pass much quicker than Charles giving the perimeter players more opportunities to be creative with the basketball. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
