Kevin Barkley vs Charles Durant thread formerly AtL

[remydat]

The bolded might be the funniest point you've ever made. No one was looking at the Rockets getting swept out of the second round as some feather in their cap for their championship contender resume. If anything it signaled an incredible back slide and regression from the previous two years and the end of their run. It literally shows and was seen at the time as the EXACT OPPOSITE thing you are trying to say.

Just playing by your rules jackwagon.

No you are just lifting statements out of context again. I said the following.

This is a lie. The same team in 95 won the championship. Pretending they were no longer championship contenders because they had 48 wins in 96 when the 47 win Rockets won the championship the year before is laughable.

And no one said it was =. Not all championship conteders are equal.

Then after you mention them being swept, I then said.

So you are saying they made the playoffs and lost to the western Conference champs. Yeah sounds like a contender to me.

Any half wit following the conversation would understand that these posts collectively indicate that their being champs in 95 is part of what makes them contenders. It was the first thing I said. Then again, guess you're not a half wit. More like a quarter.

 

[dweebs19]

wow...ok then

 

[remydat]

Again, you can't use the Rockets team THAT HAD BARKLEY ON IT as the comparison point of Barkley going to a "championship contender". How do you still not understand this???!!!

Barkley went to a team that won 48 games. Durant is going to a team that won 73 games. These are indisputable factual statements.

Even by your own "remydat" standards of self-confusion, this is incredible.

Again try to follow along.

94 - Rockets finish with 58 wins and they win the NBA Championship
95 - Rockets finish with 47 wins and they win the NBA Championship
96 - Rockets finish with 48 wins and they lose in the WC semifinals.

Barkley went to a team that won 2 championships in 3 years. They were championship contenders. This isn't that hard to understand. They then went on to win 57 games and lose in the Western Conference Finals with him.

For most people 47 wins and an NBA championship > 73 wins and no championship. Throwing out regular season records is stupid with the Rockets then they had already proven that their regular season record mattered very little once they actually make it to the playoffs. They were perennial championship contenders.

Bulls set NBA record for wins and won title in 1996. Rockets won 48 games, finished third in division, and were swept by Seattle in 2nd round. Going into the 1997 season, did you think the Rockets, without Barkley, would win the title instead of the Bulls?

I thought the Bulls would be the favorites to win again and that the Rockets would be a contender to represent the WC like they had in 2 out of the last 3 years winning twice. Championship contender doesn't mean favorite to win the title.

 

[remydat]

None of the above changes the fact they were contenders. A championship contender doesn't always make it to or win the championship. The Rockets were clearly one of the perennial championship contenders from the WC along with the Jazz and Supersonics.

And no what Barkley did was not commonplace. It was not commonplace for a guy with a PER above 20 and a recognized star to go join 2 other stars who also had PERs above 20. The Rockets were not some random 48 win team. They had two legit stars who were still performing despite their age. But feel free to count up the instances of 3 of the NBA's 50 greatest players teaming up when they all were still performing at a level where their PERs were 20 or above.

 

[FirstTimer]

None of the above changes the fact they were contenders. .

They absolutely were not. After the 96 season people were shoveling dirt on the Rockets. The Sonics looked like they were going to be around for a while with their young core of guys like Kemp and Payton and had just swept the Rockets away. The Jazz were coming into their own. The Spurs were younger and more talented. Etc. At best you could say the Rockets might be a perennial 4 seed in the West for another couple of seasons while Hakeem and Clyde continued to age but no one was elevating the Rockets to championship contenders above those three other teams.

On top of all this Barkley wasn't even the major move of that offseason. Another reason why Barkley to Houston isn't comparable to Durant to the Warriors.

It was Shaq signing with LA. After Shaq signed with the Lakers most people were elevating the Lakers above the Rockets as well.

Not sure what basketball universe you are living in right now.

 

[remydat]

I'm living in the universe where they had just won 2 out of the last 3 championships and were a perennial playoff team. Telling me other teams were also contenders doesn't change that.

 

[Scoot26]

I'm living in the universe where they had just won 2 out of the last 3 championships and were a perennial playoff team. Telling me other teams were also contenders doesn't change that.

They won 2 out of 3 championships. When they were winning them no one took them seriously. In 94 the sonics got knocked out in the 1st giving the Rockets a path... In 95 their path was truly a remarkable set of upsets. In 96 that magic ended, and as FirstTimer says, no one really took the Rockets seriously again.

Even when they made the wcf in 97, it helped Robinson was knocked out for the year.

 

[remydat]

They won 2 out of 3 championships. When they were winning them no one took them seriously. In 94 the sonics got knocked out in the 1st giving the Rockets a path... In 95 their path was truly a remarkable set of upsets. In 96 that magic ended, and as FirstTimer says, no one really took the Rockets seriously again.

Even when they made the wcf in 97, it helped Robinson was knocked out for the year.

Again does that change the fact they were contenders? It's like you guys are suddenly changing what it means to be a contender. They were a streaky team but they were a championship contender for sure.

 

[Scoot26]

Again does that change the fact they were contenders? It's like you guys are suddenly changing what it means to be a contender. They were a streaky team but they were a championship contender for sure.

After 95-96 before acquiring Barkley? No I wouldn't view them as such. When they acquired Barkley it definitely propelled them back up, but again you had a very crowded field. Lakers really changed the game by acquiring Shaq. You basically had the Sonics, Jazz, spurs, Lakers and Rockets all jockeying for position.

I think as I was a kid then, but obsessed with basketball I really only took the sonics and jazz seriously of that bunch.

Without Barkley, I'm not even considering the aging Rockets anymore.

 

[FirstTimer]

After 95-96 before acquiring Barkley? No I wouldn't view them as such. When they acquired Barkley it definitely propelled them back up, but again you had a very crowded field. Lakers really changed the game by acquiring Shaq. You basically had the Sonics, Jazz, spurs, Lakers and Rockets all jockeying for position.

I think as I was a kid then, but obsessed with basketball I really only took the sonics and jazz seriously of that bunch.

Without Barkley, I'm not even considering the aging Rockets anymore.

Exactly,

The Rockets acquiring Barkley wasn't a championship contender adding fuel to itself, it was a team trying to propel itself back into contention after falling out of it and behind some other teams in the West(Sea, Utah, San Ant, LA).

The Warriors adding Durant is a legit championship contender(duh) adding the second best player in the NBA to their team after being three minutes away from a title.

 

[Diddy1122]

Exactly,

The Rockets acquiring Barkley wasn't a championship contender adding fuel to itself, it was a team trying to propel itself back into contention after falling out of it and behind some other teams in the West(Sea, Utah, San Ant, LA).

The Warriors adding Durant is a legit championship contender(duh) adding the second best player in the NBA to their team after being three minutes away from a title.

This and Scoot's post should end all of this nonsense even though it likely won't. We all watched those teams back in the 90's and know what the situations were. The Rockets only did the Barkley trade to stay relevant in the West which was transitioning into the dominant conference in the league.

 

[remydat]

After 95-96 before acquiring Barkley? No I wouldn't view them as such. When they acquired Barkley it definitely propelled them back up, but again you had a very crowded field. Lakers really changed the game by acquiring Shaq. You basically had the Sonics, Jazz, spurs, Lakers and Rockets all jockeying for position.

I think as I was a kid then, but obsessed with basketball I really only took the sonics and jazz seriously of that bunch.

Without Barkley, I'm not even considering the aging Rockets anymore.

And I would disagree. Injuries more than anything derailed their season. Drexler missed 30 games that year. Cassell missed 20, K Smith 14, and Hakeem/Horry missed 10 each and they still won 48. They were realistically probably a 55 win team that year if Drexler and Cassell in particularly hadn't missed so much time.

This and Scoot's post should end all of this nonsense even though it likely won't. We all watched those teams back in the 90's and know what the situations were. The Rockets only did the Barkley trade to stay relevant in the West which was transitioning into the dominant conference in the league.

They were already relevant considering they had 2 championships in 3 years and 96 was an injury riddled year. The main impetus for that trade was the fact they didn't want injuries derailing their year like it did when Drexler went down. In 97, Hakeem missed a lot of time but then because Barkley and Drexler were there, they picked up the slack and still won 57 games.

 

[remydat]

Rockets were completely healthy for the playoffs. 0-4 in 2nd round vs. Sonics.

If I have an aging team that has injury issues, then it would make sense to sign a 33-year old forward.

The Rockets all played in the playoffs but they were not completely healthy. Playing in a game doesn't mean they were completely healthy.

And you are right it made sense for them to sign Barkley because once again when Hakeem went down, Barkley and Drexler carried the load and they still won 57 games despite Hakeem only playing in 47 of them.

 

[FirstTimer]

Rockets were completely healthy for the playoffs. 0-4 in 2nd round vs. Sonics.

If I have an aging team that has injury issues, then it would make sense to sign a 33-year old forward.

Nothing says championship contender prior to Barkley being there like having an aging team battling injury issues.
Usually as players age injury issues go away right?!

 

[remydat]

Nothing says championship contender prior to Barkley being there like having an aging team battling injury issues.
Usually as players age injury issues go away right?!

When healthy they clearly were a contender as evidence by them winning 48 games with Drexler missing a huge chunk of time. If they were healthy then that was a 55 win team or so.

When they played the following season with mainly Barkley and Drexler because Hakeem was out, they still won 57 games which again is evidence that them having at least 2 healthy stars made them a formidable team.

So yes they were a championship contender. If you want to argue that their age made them less likely to exhibit championship form consistently over the course of a long season then that's a separate discussion.

 

[FirstTimer]

When healthy

Nothing says championship contender prior to Barkley being there like having an aging team battling injury issues.
Usually as players age injury issues go away right?!

 

[Scoot26]

Nothing says championship contender prior to Barkley being there like having an aging team battling injury issues.
Usually as players age injury issues go away right?!

Yes that's why the 2013 Celtics won the championship.

 

[Alpha Male]

To sum everything up before bowing out of this conversation...Barkley/Rockets is the same as Durant/Warriors because Clyde Drexler wouldn't have put up with Michael Jordan's shit if they had played together in the 1984-85 season.

Fin

This is great. Keep it going.

 

[Diddy1122]

They were already relevant considering they had 2 championships in 3 years and 96 was an injury riddled year. The main impetus for that trade was the fact they didn't want injuries derailing their year like it did when Drexler went down. In 97, Hakeem missed a lot of time but then because Barkley and Drexler were there, they picked up the slack and still won 57 games.

LOL you really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Hakeem played almost every game that year! Barkley and Drexler missed 49 combined games. They didn't pick up any slack. That was Kevin Willis and Mario Elie doing that.

Your argument is toast man. It's time to stop fighting it. Unless that is, you are a glutton for internet punishment.

 

[FirstTimer]

In 97, Hakeem missed a lot of time

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1997.html

Hakeem: 78 Games played/started

#remyfail