Rockets could have had MJ+Hakeem+Drexler !!!

[Moranis]

In 1984 Sampson was viewed as a monster and clearly the best player of the group.  He was coming off a rookie season when he went for 21/11 after an epic college career.  Drexler showed some flashes his rookie year, but was a back-up playing less than half the game.  Jordan was clearly thought of as well, but was far from a sure thing, which is why he went 3rd in the draft and not 1.  For example, here is an article with a lot of rumored deals involving the 3rd pick for Jordan (including for players like Jack Sikma and Terry Cummings).  He was not considered an all time great prospect.  http://ballislife.com/terry-cummings-jordan-trade/  (notice the picture of the actual sports page at the time).

I think you are clearly looking at this through the lens of hindsight.  It was not crazy at all for the Rockets to believe that a Sampson/Olajuwon twin towers lineup would destroy the league and lead to multiple titles.  I mean in just 2 years together they reached the NBA Finals losing to Boston in 6 (after beating the Lakers in 5 in the WCF).  The next season Sampson got hurt and was never the same.  If Sampson doesn't get hurt, the Rockets could have been a dynasty.  Sampson was that good and had the potential to go down as a top 5 center all time (at least in the same tier as Hakeem and Shaq behind Wilt, Kareem, and Bill).

To be honest he would've likely went #2 if any team not named the Blazers had the pick, he was viewed as a guy with perennial All-Star or even All-NBA potential. Besides San Diego offering Cummings for Jordan, Dallas offered 24 year old All-Star Mark Aguirre for Jordan (it was turned down immediately by the Bulls), while Philadelphia offered the fifth pick that became Charles Barkley + All-Star Andrew Toney to acquire Jordan (source: http://www.chicagonow.com/medium-rare/2016/10/23-things-you-might-not-know-about-michael-jordan-and-the-1984-nba-draft/). Sure he wasn't viewed in the same light that Hakeem was, but he was viewed very highly around the league and was considered as a special prospect judging from what teams offered the Bulls to acquire his services.

This isn't looking at it in hindsight, getting a guard/wing prospect who teams were willing to give up All-Stars for (in Philly's case an All-Star and another lottery pick in a stacked draft class!) plus another wing who has shown flashes of star potential is a really good return for a guy who you'd have some overlap with the guy you're going to select this draft (obviously Hakeem and Sampson played well together, but Hakeem was clearly the better player who would've benefited more by playing with skilled perimeter players instead of another big like Sampson - a big reason why Houston collapsed after Sampson's injury was that their backcourt was horrendous, not because Sampson was godzilla in the NBA). The Rockets would've been fine either way, but getting two guys who Hakeem can play off of in an inside-out system was the ideal move for them imo.

Side note: I simply disagree with the notion that Sampson could've been in the class of Wilt (much less Hakeem, Shaq, Kareem and Bill), the team stats don't show that he moved the needle and his individual stats (even adjusted) weren't amazing compared to the guys you've mentioned either.

It absolutely is looking at in hindsight because you have no appreciation for what Sampson was in 1984.  Sampson was probably the most heavily recruited high school player ever.  His high school hype matched Lebron's high school hype (different era so different types of hype).  He then went on to have one of the most prolific college careers ever winning 3 Naismith player of the year awards (only Walton has done that with him).  With his size and agility he was absolutely thought of in the vein of Wilt and Bill.  He was just an incredible athlete and he didn't disappoint averaging 21/11 as a rookie, winning unanimous ROY and making the all star game.  You just have no comprehension of what Ralph Sampson was in 1984.  He was the unicorn that everyone had been waiting for.  He was an incredible athlete who was destined for greatness until he got hurt in year 4.  He was never the same. 

[Roy H.]

In 1984 Sampson was viewed as a monster and clearly the best player of the group.  He was coming off a rookie season when he went for 21/11 after an epic college career.  Drexler showed some flashes his rookie year, but was a back-up playing less than half the game.  Jordan was clearly thought of as well, but was far from a sure thing, which is why he went 3rd in the draft and not 1.  For example, here is an article with a lot of rumored deals involving the 3rd pick for Jordan (including for players like Jack Sikma and Terry Cummings).  He was not considered an all time great prospect.  http://ballislife.com/terry-cummings-jordan-trade/  (notice the picture of the actual sports page at the time).

I think you are clearly looking at this through the lens of hindsight.  It was not crazy at all for the Rockets to believe that a Sampson/Olajuwon twin towers lineup would destroy the league and lead to multiple titles.  I mean in just 2 years together they reached the NBA Finals losing to Boston in 6 (after beating the Lakers in 5 in the WCF).  The next season Sampson got hurt and was never the same.  If Sampson doesn't get hurt, the Rockets could have been a dynasty.  Sampson was that good and had the potential to go down as a top 5 center all time (at least in the same tier as Hakeem and Shaq behind Wilt, Kareem, and Bill).

To be honest he would've likely went #2 if any team not named the Blazers had the pick, he was viewed as a guy with perennial All-Star or even All-NBA potential. Besides San Diego offering Cummings for Jordan, Dallas offered 24 year old All-Star Mark Aguirre for Jordan (it was turned down immediately by the Bulls), while Philadelphia offered the fifth pick that became Charles Barkley + All-Star Andrew Toney to acquire Jordan (source: http://www.chicagonow.com/medium-rare/2016/10/23-things-you-might-not-know-about-michael-jordan-and-the-1984-nba-draft/). Sure he wasn't viewed in the same light that Hakeem was, but he was viewed very highly around the league and was considered as a special prospect judging from what teams offered the Bulls to acquire his services.

This isn't looking at it in hindsight, getting a guard/wing prospect who teams were willing to give up All-Stars for (in Philly's case an All-Star and another lottery pick in a stacked draft class!) plus another wing who has shown flashes of star potential is a really good return for a guy who you'd have some overlap with the guy you're going to select this draft (obviously Hakeem and Sampson played well together, but Hakeem was clearly the better player who would've benefited more by playing with skilled perimeter players instead of another big like Sampson - a big reason why Houston collapsed after Sampson's injury was that their backcourt was horrendous, not because Sampson was godzilla in the NBA). The Rockets would've been fine either way, but getting two guys who Hakeem can play off of in an inside-out system was the ideal move for them imo.

Side note: I simply disagree with the notion that Sampson could've been in the class of Wilt (much less Hakeem, Shaq, Kareem and Bill), the team stats don't show that he moved the needle and his individual stats (even adjusted) weren't amazing compared to the guys you've mentioned either.

It absolutely is looking at in hindsight because you have no appreciation for what Sampson was in 1984.  Sampson was probably the most heavily recruited high school player ever.  His high school hype matched Lebron's high school hype (different era so different types of hype).  He then went on to have one of the most prolific college careers ever winning 3 Naismith player of the year awards (only Walton has done that with him).  With his size and agility he was absolutely thought of in the vein of Wilt and Bill.  He was just an incredible athlete and he didn't disappoint averaging 21/11 as a rookie, winning unanimous ROY and making the all star game.  You just have no comprehension of what Ralph Sampson was in 1984.  He was the unicorn that everyone had been waiting for.  He was an incredible athlete who was destined for greatness until he got hurt in year 4.  He was never the same.

I think that is right.  Sampson was untouchable after his rookie season.  Even if MJ projected as a future All-NBA guard, the surefire All-NBA big seemed like a safer bet.   

I can’t blame the Rockets for passing, although in hindsight it’s a great “what could have been”.

[nickagneta]

Sampson was an absolute MONSTER coming out of college. I remember Red did everything he could to try to get Sampson to come out of high school straight to the NBA in 1980 because the Celtics had the #1 pick.

That's how good Auerbach valued him. Of course, Red traded that #1 pick for Parish and the right to select McHale, so everything turned out okay, but originally, if Sampson came out, Red valued an 18 year old Sampson more than 4 year veteran Parish and a 22 year old McHale coming out of college.

After Sampson got hurt, he really wasn't the same ever again. Bone on bone with no cartilage is just not something you can play with and be decent, nevermind elite, in the NBA.

Also, wings and guards weren't not in the same stratosphere, when it came to value, as multi-skilled big men in the early 80's. The game revolved around the big man. So using 2020's positional values to judge MJ as a prospect versus bigs like Hakeem and Sampson is just 1000% wrong because that's not how NBA GMs at the time valued players.

Lastly, if all you got to judge Sampson is stats, you'll really never grasp just how good Sampson was before that injury. But, given where this stat driven analysis is coming from(the site not the poster here), color me unsurprised. That site tends to has massive flaws in their analysis because it only puts stats in their algorithms and then finds vids to match the storyline they try to tell in their analysis.

Moses wasn't that dominant. Bird was an off the ball player. Ralph Sampson wasn't that good. Not knowing the reason the 2002 Bucks fell apart was due to the cancerous addition of Anthony Mason. Time and time again, that site is just flat out WRONG.

[Somebody]

Sampson was an absolute MONSTER coming out of college. I remember Red did everything he could to try to get Sampson to come out of high school straight to the NBA in 1980 because the Celtics had the #1 pick.

That's how good Auerbach valued him. Of course, Red traded that #1 pick for Parish and the right to select McHale, so everything turned out okay, but originally, if Sampson came out, Red valued an 18 year old Sampson more than 4 year veteran Parish and a 22 year old McHale coming out of college.

After Sampson got hurt, he really wasn't the same ever again. Bone on bone with no cartilage is just not something you can play with and be decent, nevermind elite, in the NBA.

Also, wings and guards weren't not in the same stratosphere, when it came to value, as multi-skilled big men in the early 80's. The game revolved around the big man. So using 2020's positional values to judge MJ as a prospect versus bigs like Hakeem and Sampson is just 1000% wrong because that's not how NBA GMs at the time valued players.

Lastly, if all you got to judge Sampson is stats, you'll really never grasp just how good Sampson was before that injury. But, given where this stat driven analysis is coming from(the site not the poster here), color me unsurprised. That site tends to has massive flaws in their analysis because it only puts stats in their algorithms and then finds vids to match the storyline they try to tell in their analysis.

Moses wasn't that dominant. Bird was an off the ball player. Ralph Sampson wasn't that good. Not knowing the reason the 2002 Bucks fell apart was due to the cancerous addition of Anthony Mason. Time and time again, that site is just flat out WRONG.

Red's one of the finest basketball minds ever, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be wrong: he vetoed the Tony Parker selection in 2001 for Celtic legend Joe Forte because he didn't trust European point guards, was against the implementation of the three point line and he probably made many more mistakes that I'm not educated about. It doesn't make him any lesser of an intellect, but it does prove that he isn't infallible: being willing to give up prime Robert Parish and Kevin McHale for Ralph Sampson, even if he maintained the level of play he did during his first three years for a 10-15 year period, would have been a move that would come back to bite the Celtics.

I agree with the notion that big men were much more valuable than guards and wings in the early 80s (I'm probably one of the few posters who value defence in a 40/60 spread compared to offence in the modern game and possibly the reverse in the past), but it doesn't mean that you'd stick with your big when you were offered a wing who would explode as a top 20-25 player in the league in his rookie season (and was apparently projected to do so judging the trade packages other teams offered for him in the 1984 draft) plus another intriguing wing prospect and had an adequate, if not superior replacement (I think Olajuwon was easily better than Sampson by 1986, and reading player opinions/posts on forums by people who watched the NBA back the support the argument that Olajuwon was the man as soon as he arrived in Houston) ready with your draft pick that season.

Wrong time and time again because most of those arguments are backed by film and statistics that when used together can paint a good idea of a player's impact instead of memories and the basic points/assists/rebounds slash line . Also the 2002 Bucks one was me not knowing, not the site. With all due respect, I'd love you to post game tape to actually argue how the three things you took issue with are false, I'm more than open to change my mind on those players if the tape actually screams otherwise (you can just dump a full game that you've watched here since you dislike cut clips). This isn't trying to disrespect you, I'm genuinely curious about the line of thinking you use when watching those games and whether the site missed something, which is very much possible.

[Roy H.]

but it doesn't mean that you'd stick with your big when you were offered a wing who would explode as a top 20-25 player in the league in his rookie season (and was apparently projected to do so judging the trade packages other teams offered for him in the 1984 draft) plus another intriguing wing prospect and had an adequate, if not superior replacement (I think Olajuwon was easily better than Sampson by 1986, and reading player opinions/posts on forums by people who watched the NBA back the support the argument that Olajuwon was the man as soon as he arrived in Houston) ready with your draft pick that season.

Sampson was a top-20 player in his rookie season.  He followed that up by making All-NBA second team in his second year.

Teams just didn’t trade away foundational bigs back then.  I mean, value wise it’s about the same as if the Celtics offered the #2 pick and Danny Ainge for Hakeem in 1986.

[Somebody]

In 1984 Sampson was viewed as a monster and clearly the best player of the group.  He was coming off a rookie season when he went for 21/11 after an epic college career.  Drexler showed some flashes his rookie year, but was a back-up playing less than half the game.  Jordan was clearly thought of as well, but was far from a sure thing, which is why he went 3rd in the draft and not 1.  For example, here is an article with a lot of rumored deals involving the 3rd pick for Jordan (including for players like Jack Sikma and Terry Cummings).  He was not considered an all time great prospect.  http://ballislife.com/terry-cummings-jordan-trade/  (notice the picture of the actual sports page at the time).

I think you are clearly looking at this through the lens of hindsight.  It was not crazy at all for the Rockets to believe that a Sampson/Olajuwon twin towers lineup would destroy the league and lead to multiple titles.  I mean in just 2 years together they reached the NBA Finals losing to Boston in 6 (after beating the Lakers in 5 in the WCF).  The next season Sampson got hurt and was never the same.  If Sampson doesn't get hurt, the Rockets could have been a dynasty.  Sampson was that good and had the potential to go down as a top 5 center all time (at least in the same tier as Hakeem and Shaq behind Wilt, Kareem, and Bill).

To be honest he would've likely went #2 if any team not named the Blazers had the pick, he was viewed as a guy with perennial All-Star or even All-NBA potential. Besides San Diego offering Cummings for Jordan, Dallas offered 24 year old All-Star Mark Aguirre for Jordan (it was turned down immediately by the Bulls), while Philadelphia offered the fifth pick that became Charles Barkley + All-Star Andrew Toney to acquire Jordan (source: http://www.chicagonow.com/medium-rare/2016/10/23-things-you-might-not-know-about-michael-jordan-and-the-1984-nba-draft/). Sure he wasn't viewed in the same light that Hakeem was, but he was viewed very highly around the league and was considered as a special prospect judging from what teams offered the Bulls to acquire his services.

This isn't looking at it in hindsight, getting a guard/wing prospect who teams were willing to give up All-Stars for (in Philly's case an All-Star and another lottery pick in a stacked draft class!) plus another wing who has shown flashes of star potential is a really good return for a guy who you'd have some overlap with the guy you're going to select this draft (obviously Hakeem and Sampson played well together, but Hakeem was clearly the better player who would've benefited more by playing with skilled perimeter players instead of another big like Sampson - a big reason why Houston collapsed after Sampson's injury was that their backcourt was horrendous, not because Sampson was godzilla in the NBA). The Rockets would've been fine either way, but getting two guys who Hakeem can play off of in an inside-out system was the ideal move for them imo.

Side note: I simply disagree with the notion that Sampson could've been in the class of Wilt (much less Hakeem, Shaq, Kareem and Bill), the team stats don't show that he moved the needle and his individual stats (even adjusted) weren't amazing compared to the guys you've mentioned either.

It absolutely is looking at in hindsight because you have no appreciation for what Sampson was in 1984.  Sampson was probably the most heavily recruited high school player ever.  His high school hype matched Lebron's high school hype (different era so different types of hype).  He then went on to have one of the most prolific college careers ever winning 3 Naismith player of the year awards (only Walton has done that with him).  With his size and agility he was absolutely thought of in the vein of Wilt and Bill.  He was just an incredible athlete and he didn't disappoint averaging 21/11 as a rookie, winning unanimous ROY and making the all star game. You just have no comprehension of what Ralph Sampson was in 1984.  He was the unicorn that everyone had been waiting for.  He was an incredible athlete who was destined for greatness until he got hurt in year 4. He was never the same.

Then he would've moved the needle like Hakeem did later on as a lone star in his first year in Houston and wouldn't have been clearly eclipsed by Hakeem in the latter's second season in the league. He was great but it doesn't mean that he was Wilt/Hakeem/Shaq/Russell/Kareem, and that's my point in this whole thread.

Sampson improved a -11.12 SRS squad in '83 to a -3.12 SRS team in '84, which sounds great, but it wasn't just him: the Rockets added Lewis Lloyd who could gave the team a much needed extra scoring punch besides Sampson, starting point guard Phil Ford as well as two way rookie wing Rodney McCray. He also replaced a long-toothed Elvin Hayes who was likely not starting material in '83, and it probably inflated the SRS improvement (replacing fringe NBA players with a starting calibre player would be a significant upgrade, much less an All-Star/All-NBA player). He led an impressive albeit not outstanding improvement on the defensive end of the floor: the Rockets' relative DRTG jumped by 3 points from '83 to '84 with him being the anchor of the defence, and combined with how he and the addition of a decent secondary scorer and a subpar point guard led to a 5.4 point improvement in relative ORTG you'd be absolutely correct to say that he was an All-Star calibre centre with an argument for fringe All-NBA that season. But he wasn't on the level of Hakeem when he was a lone star after Sampson's injuries: the Rockets from '88 to '90 (I'm including '88 because Sampson only played 19 games that year, it was the start of Hakeem's lone star run) were middle of the pack in SRS (finished 13/23, 15/25 and 10/27) and were elite defensively - they finished 4th in '88 and '90 and topped the league in '90 in DRTG. You could make the argument that Hakeem had superior supporting casts, but such a large difference in team performance isn't made up by having marginally better teammates - it's pretty safe to say that Hakeem was considerably better than Sampson.

[Somebody]

but it doesn't mean that you'd stick with your big when you were offered a wing who would explode as a top 20-25 player in the league in his rookie season (and was apparently projected to do so judging the trade packages other teams offered for him in the 1984 draft) plus another intriguing wing prospect and had an adequate, if not superior replacement (I think Olajuwon was easily better than Sampson by 1986, and reading player opinions/posts on forums by people who watched the NBA back the support the argument that Olajuwon was the man as soon as he arrived in Houston) ready with your draft pick that season.

Sampson was a top-20 player in his rookie season.  He followed that up by making All-NBA second team in his second year.

Teams just didn’t trade away foundational bigs back then.  I mean, value wise it’s about the same as if the Celtics offered the #2 pick and Danny Ainge for Hakeem in 1986.

Eh Hakeem was pushing top 5 in 1986, he was significantly better than '84 Sampson imo. A better comparison would be trading '86 McHale for say #2 and Ainge. But yeah I see the point about big man centrepieces (and I'm inclined to agree, defence was so important back then). Just feel that the value was incredible even back then, and the Rockets would've probably been better off even if Jordan and Drexler didn't develop into All-NBA/MVP talents because of how good Hakeem was + he fit better with perimeter pieces who could allow him to play the 1 in 4 out game that won Houston two championships in the mid-90s.

[Donoghus]

but it doesn't mean that you'd stick with your big when you were offered a wing who would explode as a top 20-25 player in the league in his rookie season (and was apparently projected to do so judging the trade packages other teams offered for him in the 1984 draft) plus another intriguing wing prospect and had an adequate, if not superior replacement (I think Olajuwon was easily better than Sampson by 1986, and reading player opinions/posts on forums by people who watched the NBA back the support the argument that Olajuwon was the man as soon as he arrived in Houston) ready with your draft pick that season.

Sampson was a top-20 player in his rookie season.  He followed that up by making All-NBA second team in his second year.

Teams just didn’t trade away foundational bigs back then.  I mean, value wise it’s about the same as if the Celtics offered the #2 pick and Danny Ainge for Hakeem in 1986.

This more than anything back in 1984.

[Ogaju]

but it doesn't mean that you'd stick with your big when you were offered a wing who would explode as a top 20-25 player in the league in his rookie season (and was apparently projected to do so judging the trade packages other teams offered for him in the 1984 draft) plus another intriguing wing prospect and had an adequate, if not superior replacement (I think Olajuwon was easily better than Sampson by 1986, and reading player opinions/posts on forums by people who watched the NBA back the support the argument that Olajuwon was the man as soon as he arrived in Houston) ready with your draft pick that season.

Sampson was a top-20 player in his rookie season.  He followed that up by making All-NBA second team in his second year.

Teams just didn’t trade away foundational bigs back then.  I mean, value wise it’s about the same as if the Celtics offered the #2 pick and Danny Ainge for Hakeem in 1986.

Eh Hakeem was pushing top 5 in 1986, he was significantly better than '84 Sampson imo. A better comparison would be trading '86 McHale for say #2 and Ainge. But yeah I see the point about big man centrepieces (and I'm inclined to agree, defence was so important back then). Just feel that the value was incredible even back then, and the Rockets would've probably been better off even if Jordan and Drexler didn't develop into All-NBA/MVP talents because of how good Hakeem was + he fit better with perimeter pieces who could allow him to play the 1 in 4 out game that won Houston two championships in the mid-90s.

The Houston Rockets pretty much destroyed Ralph Sampson's career when they drafted Hakeem Olajuwon. Ralph would probably have reached his potential and be in the league of the great centers if he had not been put of position and forced to play power forward because Hakeem could not play that position. Hakeem was young and raw when he went into the league he had no handles and  no moves, he had to come up with the pretty pedestrian dream shake to get his shot off, other than that he pretty much survived on put backs, dunks, and defense. There is no way he could have played power forward at that time, and that is why the much taller Sampson was taking out of position and forced to play power forward by the greedy and inept Houston organization. That single move destroyed Samspon's career. The Rockets should have kept Sampson and drafted Jordan. That is what they should have done. That twin tower experiment did not work.