- Joined:
- Apr 16, 2013
- Posts:
- 21,858
- Liked Posts:
- 9,050
Wow!
Wow!
Thanks.
On a completely unrelated note but directed at you...Would you say that, without Durant, the Warriors are the best NBA team heading into the 2016-2017 season? I would. Would you say that, with Durant, the Warriors are the best NBA team heading into the 2016-2017 season? If not, then God help you.
Would you say that, without Barkley, the Rockets were better than the 72-10 Bulls heading into the 1996-97 season? I wouldn't. Would you say that, with Barkley, the Rockets were better than the 72-10 Bulls heading into the 1996-97 season? I wouldn't.
Barkley is crying because Durant got a better job offer. That is all. He's a hypocrite because the Rockets team he went too was championship caliber.
??????
I would think it would matter if your point was that Barkley went to a team that was comparable to the 2016 Warriors, and use the time when Barkley was on the team as the point of comparison (57 wins vs. 48 wins). It would be like saying LeBron James went to a Heat team that was comparable to the 2016 Warriors, and using James' 1st year with the Heat as the point of comparison.
It makes absolutely zero sense, and is 100% incorrect.
So, if Durant and the Warriors go 80-2 and win the title, would you say the 2017 Warriors are comparable to the 1997 Rockets because the Rockets hypothetically could have challenged the Warriors for a title?
Contradictory statement. Durant didn't get a better job offer because both the Rockets and Warriors are of "championship caliber". Barkley can't be upset because what Durant did was "better', yet at the same time be "hypocritical" because what Durant did was the "same".
Don't mind me...I'm just keeping a running tally here for reference purposes...carry on...
LOL at anyone considering the 48 win and 5 seeded Rockets as championship contenders after the 1996 NBA season.
LOL at anyone considering the 48 win and 5 seeded Rockets as championship contenders after the 1996 NBA season.
:aj:Your being dense again. The first comment was I relation to my argument which was not based on theit records but the fact that the team had 3 stars on it once be Barkley was added.
You then started throwing out records and as it relates to your specific argument about records, my point is a 57 win team and a 73 win team are both championship teams so in the context of your moaning about records who cares who is on the teams. We know the players on the teams must be good because they won 57 and 73 games.
Right Barkley went to then because he thought they were not. Try had 2 of the greatest players in NBA history and obviously Barkley though adding him would improve them contending. They also had won the championship just recently and 96 a down year for them directly in part to injuries.
So now you are rewriting history in pretending like Barkley couldn't easily see that they were championship caliber. He was obviously right because they won 57 games the year after and we're simply beat by a 64 win team.
The Rockets in 95 won the championship with 47 regular season wins so 48 games in 96 means nothing. They lost to the Western Conference finals champion.
They were a perennial playoff team and a championship contender. Being a contender doesn't mean you win each and every year.
Lol I see once presented with facts that they were in fact championship contenders you shift quickly to the Rory tactics.
I think you've failed to grasp what Barkley was "crying" about. It is not about just going to a championship contender. Every single player wants that. It's about the 2nd leading scorer in the NBA, leaving a CHAMPIONSHIP CONTENDER that was up 3-1 in the WCF, to go to the team that beat you in that very same WCF. Barkley is 100% right that it is a weak move. You can call him a hypocrite all you want but the situations have ZERO comparison.