Official: Lakers Team of the Decade

[21_Blessings]

Way to shit the bed in the 1st round SA. :flag:

[SpursDynasty]

There is no team of this decade. LA had a three year run from 2000-2002, the Spurs dominated from 2003-2007, and there are Detroit, Miami, and Boston championships in between.

LA has had a 7 year gap between championships (2002 and 2009), so if theres anything close to a team of the decade, its the Spurs.

[21_Blessings]

Spurs didn't dominate 04, 06 so try again

[hater]

no Shaq no ring. statement of the decade

[jacobdrj]

SA was in the playoffs every year of the decade.
SA advanced past the 1st round 9/10 times in the decade.
SA won as many championships as anyone else this decade (3).
SA had HCA in the 1st round every single year.

LA won 3 titles.
LA made the playoffs 9/10 times this decade.
LA advanced to 5 NBA Finals.
LA advanced past the 1st round 7/10 times this decade.

It is close, but on consistency, SA seems to edge the Lakers out, unless they can pull an upset to beat the Cavs.

Cleveland over Denver in 6. Book it.

[jacobdrj]

There is no team of this decade. LA had a three year run from 2000-2002, the Spurs dominated from 2003-2007, and there are Detroit, Miami, and Boston championships in between.

LA has had a 7 year gap between championships (2002 and 2009), so if theres anything close to a team of the decade, its the Spurs.

I think awarding them the trophy before they have earned it is a bit premature, don't you think?

[Findog]

Spurs didn't dominate 04, 06 so try again

Your team sucked fucking balls from 2004-07 and were only rescued from that fate by a trinity of David Stern, Michael Heisley and Jerry West, so shut the fuck up.

[crc21209]

:lol at this thread.

Lets look at the pro's and con's for the "team of the decade argument":

Lakers:

The good: 3-peat from 2000-2003.

The bad: 04' Finals appearance, but lost. Didnt even qualify for the playoffs in 2005..and lost in the 1st round in 2006 AND 2007 to the Suns. 2008 Finals appearance but lost to the Celtics.

Spurs:

The good: Championships in 2003, 2005, and 2007. Advanced to AT LEAST the 2nd round every year since 2001 up until this year. 10 consecutive 50+ win seasons, and have not missed the Playoffs in 10+ years as well.

The bad: 2009- First 1st round exit since 2000. Never repeated but stayed in the hunt and consistent every year since 2001.

[21_Blessings]

It is close, but on consistency, SA seems to edge the Lakers out, unless they can pull an upset to beat the Cavs.

Final appearances mean more than a 1-3 round exit. That's just how it is.

Head to head, Lakers 4-1. Sorry but you can't spin the truth any longer.

[Findog]

Final appearances mean more than a 1-3 round exit. That's just how it is.

Head to head, Lakers 4-1. Sorry but you can't spin the truth any longer.

It's never too late for you to crawl back up your mother's coochie so she can go to work with a coat hanger.

[nkdlunch]

SA was in the playoffs every year of the decade.
SA advanced past the 1st round 9/10 times in the decade.
SA won as many championships as anyone else this decade (3).
SA had HCA in the 1st round every single year.

LA won 3 titles.
LA made the playoffs 9/10 times this decade.
LA advanced to 5 NBA Finals.
LA advanced past the 1st round 7/10 times this decade.

It is close, but on consistency, SA seems to edge the Lakers out, unless they can pull an upset to beat the Cavs.

Cleveland over Denver in 6. Book it.


thank you for your neutral, great analysis. case closed. end of thread

[IronMexican]

If Lakers win one more title, I agree.

[Xylus]

Spurs were more consistent, but the Lakers own the head-to-head.

I'd pick the Spurs as Team of the Decade, but I could also call it a tie. If the Lakers win this year, they'll definitely get supreme status.

[jacobdrj]

Final appearances mean more than a 1-3 round exit. That's just how it is.

Head to head, Lakers 4-1. Sorry but you can't spin the truth any longer.

That would mean acknowledging the Eastern Conference as the Western Conference's equal, otherwise, a 3rd round exit would be equivalent. I do think that, sans 2002, they were, but I think I am in the minority.

Head-To-Head is a good stat, but missing the playoffs and 2 embarrassing 1st round exits plays into the formula too. SA just got injured. LA chose to go a different direction, and so far, it has yet to pay off in the form of a title.

I would agree that if you want to segment the decade into 3, it starts off Laker-centric, moves over to SA, and just starting to swing the pendulum back to LA the last 2 seasons.

Again, if the Lakers upset the Cavs (and IMHO Denver) than I think the Lakers put the exclamation point on a decade well done. Otherwise, It is a tossup taking into account the troughs and peaks.

[Gino]

Spurs. I think this will remembered as the decade when the international player showed up.

Dirk. Nash, Yao. Ginobili etc.

[JoeTait75]

Team of the Decade = Spurs

Best Single-Season Team = Lake Show (2000-01)

[jacobdrj]

Head to head is also a little dangerous.
While I think the following stat does hold true, you (and most others) might disagree:
Ben Wallace is 3 of 4 head-to-head against Shaq in the 00's.
I think most would say I just spun the truth by stating that fact. However, I do think Ben did in fact own Shaq. So even the head-to-heads are a little skewed.

[lefty]

Way to shit the bed in the 1st round SA. :flag:

Like the Lakers did in 2006 ?

Or 2005? Oh wait, no playoffs for the Lakers in 2005 :lmao


So, mathematically, Spurs are the team of the decade, you moron

[jacobdrj]

Dallas, San Antonio, and Sacremento were the international teams of the West, and belive it or not, the Pistons were the international squad of the East for a little while, with the likes of Rebracca, Okur, Sanchez, Darko, Delfino, Arroyo and more...

[IronMexican]

According to Spurfans: Titles > anything else. So if the Lakers win 4 this decade, it's theirs. I mean, you always hear them boast about 4 titles:)

[21_Blessings]

That would mean acknowledging the Eastern Conference as the Western Conference's equal, otherwise, a 3rd round exit would be equivalent. I do think that, sans 2002, they were, but I think I am in the minority.

No, they aren't equivalent. That's stupid and makes no sense.


Head-To-Head is a good stat, but missing the playoffs and 2 embarrassing 1st round exits plays into the formula too. SA just got injured. LA chose to go a different direction, and so far, it has yet to pay off in the form of a title.

The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round. The Spurs however have 1 embarrassing 1st round exit. 3 seed choking to the 6 seed.


I would agree that if you want to segment the decade into 3, it starts off Laker-centric, moves over to SA, and just starting to swing the pendulum back to LA the last 2 seasons.

No back to back for SA ruins this argument. As the pendulum went back to LA after they punked SA in 04. And then their embarrassing 06 playoff exit to a choking Dallas team is just flat out sad.

No one can take SA serious as a dynasty without a back to back. Thems the breaks.



Again, if the Lakers upset the Cavs (and IMHO Denver) than I think the Lakers put the exclamation point on a decade well done. Otherwise, It is a tossup taking into account the troughs and peaks.

The tossup (which it isn't) would be decided by Head to Head matchups in the playoffs which the Lakers have the obvious advantage.

[Ghazi]

You really are an idiot, you know that?

*cue in shot about being a Mavs fan*

[Gino]

Make a blink decision.

Lakers and Celtics in the 80s...

Bulls in the 90s...

The next decade was.....

I guess I would say "Spurs" but the truth is there was no team that dominated for the decade.

[Gino]

The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round. The Spurs however have 1 embarrassing 1st round exit. 3 seed choking to the 6 seed.



Um..they have something worse. NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS IN 2005, JACKASS!!

Also, losing to the Suns after being up 3-1 was pretty embarrassing. At least it should have been.

Getting your asses handed to you the next year by the Suns was even worse.

Or maybe Kobe demanding a trade was worse. All in all, Id rather have this year's Spurs' loss than any of those Lakers years. And at least the Spurs dont have Ginobili.

[kamikazi_player]

quit talking out of your ass 21_blessings
You guys choked 2 times in the NBA Finals
You guys lost to the Suns two times, and we own those bitches.
We own you guys in 2003 and would be in 2004 if it wasn't for that fluke shot.
Kobe watched shaq win 3 championships :lol

[YellowFever]

There is no team of the decade.

My criteria is five rings in a ten year span.

If the Lake Show gets back to back this year and next..they are it..but not before.

[kamikazi_player]

Um..they have something worse. NOT MAKING THE PLAYOFFS IN 2005, JACKASS!!

Also, losing to the Suns after being up 3-1 was pretty embarrassing. At least it should have been.

Getting your asses handed to you the next year by the Suns was even worse.

Or maybe Kobe demanding a trade was worse. All in all, Id rather have this year's Spurs' loss than any of those years.
yeah, what a bitch, Lakers have two bitches named Kobe and Vujabitch.

[21_Blessings]

Like the Lakers did in 2006 ?

7 seed losing to the 2 seed? Nope.


So, mathematically, Spurs are the team of the decade, you moron

No they aren't, moron. Playoff appearances don't mean shit, else Portland would be the 90's Team of the Decade you stupid retard.

Try graduating High School before you post.

[Gino]

I think the three year window beginning from Shaq's Departure to Kobe's public demand for a trade pretty much dismisses the Lakers from any SERIOUS consideration.

A team of the decade can't be a punching bag for 3 seasons in the middle of the decade.

[Findog]

I like how 21 Palins just ignores the aborted fetus that was 2004-2007, when they missed the playoffs one year, choked a 3-1 deficit away another, then got curbstomped by the Suns in the other season.

[kamikazi_player]

lol, 24 point lead in game 4 of last years NBA finals
lol, Vujabitch is the property of Ray Allen
lol, Kobe whining like a little bitch to management
lol, 4 All-stars=no championship
lol, missing playoffs in 2005
lol, owned by Suns two straight years
lol, 21_blessings

[Findog]

lol, 24 point lead in game 4 of last years NBA finals
lol, Vujabitch is the property of Ray Allen
lol, Kobe whining like a little bitch to management
lol, 4 All-stars=no championship
lol, 21_blessings

I'd rather be a Mavericks fan and feel like Charlie Brown after trying to kick the football every spring than be 21 Palins.

[Gino]

However...................

I sometimes forget the Lakers made the finals in 04.

5 finals appearances...and probably six....in ten years.

Sigh......mathematically it has to be the Lakers.

[JamStone]

What is the timeline?

Are we talking the last 10 years?

Are we talking about the 2000s?

If so, when does this particular decade start? The 1999-2000 season or the 2000-01 season? Does it end this season or next season?

Depending on the parameters, the answer may change.

[Gino]

What is the timeline?

Are we talking the last 10 years?

Are we talking about the 2000s?

If so, when does this particular decade start? The 1999-2000 season or the 2000-01 season? Does it end this season or next season?

Depending on the parameters, the answer may change.

Good question.

1999-2000
2008-2009

[JamStone]

See, I feel the decade starts on a 1 year, so the 2000-01 season. When you count to 10, you don't start at 0. You start at 1. I say this decade starts at the 2000-01 season and ends on the 2009-10 season. If that's the case, the Lakers only have two NBA championships in this decade so far.

[jacobdrj]

No, they aren't equivalent. That's stupid and makes no sense.


Yes it does make sense. Defense reigns in the EC. Head-to-head, in single game match ups, the offensive team will have an edge. But in a 7 game series, defensive teams can make adjustments. We saw this exageraged last season against the Cavs, but it was true the other seasons as well. The only teams from the West to make it to the Finals played EC style defense. With the exception of 2002, where the East didn't even play much D either, the 2 conferences as a whole were equivalent.

Remember, it took an EC team to beat the Lakers in their 16-1 playoff run...

This isn't the topic I wanted to cover in this subject, but I brought it up because of the faulty logic you are invoking: By acknowledging that a Finals Berth is significantly > than a Conference Finals Exit, you are contradicting yourself. Either the East was the Least, or it was another important obstacle on the journey of winning a championship.



The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round. The Spurs however have 1 embarrassing 1st round exit. 3 seed choking to the 6 seed.


What wasn't embarrassing about it? The Lakers were healthy, had an opportunity to beat Phx by taking HCA, and lost. The fact they were even a lower seed does not bode well for this particular Team of the Decade argument.

Spurs were injured. There is a possibility that Dallas is coming together as had been expected, with a coach of Carlisle's caliber. Dallas is not devoid of talent, and were obviously good enough to take out a team missing a core piece.

Bynum was out for the '08 Finals. That series wasn't embarrassing for that reason alone. They came up against a more complete defensive team in the Celtics.



No back to back for SA ruins this argument. As the pendulum went back to LA after they punked SA in 04. And then their embarrassing 06 playoff exit to a choking Dallas team is just flat out sad.

No one can take SA serious as a dynasty without a back to back. Thems the breaks.


I think you are putting too much weight on back-to-backs when you are looking at a whole decade. Pistons had a back-to-back. Were they better than the Celtics from 81-90? Were they a DYNASTY? I think not.

If you are arguing who had a better contiguous run, I don't think anyone doubts the Lakers get that merit. But it is quantity of titles, when looking over a long period of time, not when you won them. In a way, the fact they were down for a year and came back shows some great resilience. Few other teams have won so many titles after such tumult in their rosters...

I don't believe San Antonio 'choked' in Dallas. Dallas had no business being in that Finals to begin with. Dallas was practically being handed the keys to the Finals by the referees, and Dallas STILL had to take the series to 7 on a last second shot, by Dirk of all people (IIRC)...

Unless you can directly define Dynasty (a term loosely thrown around, without much thought) it is difficult to make any arguments about it. Most say that if you don't win 4 in a decade, you are not a dynasty. Lakers and Spurs both have 3. In a single 10 year span, the Spurs have 4. Unless the Lakers meet both criteria, I think both the Spurs and the Lakers will be debated forever. Lakers still have a shot to do that, but until they do, 3 titles is iffy on the Dynasty thing... Doesn't mean both teams were not great. Almost every champion won because they were among the BEST that season, for an 82 game marathon and 14-16 game playoff...




The tossup (which it isn't) would be decided by Head to Head match ups in the playoffs which the Lakers have the obvious advantage.

Again, this might be flawed based on my previous example.

[jacobdrj]

Team of the decade kind of changed definition with the introduction of Free Agency. Just throwing that out there...

[ElNono]

I think one other thing that stands out more as far as the Spurs is concerned, is that they're a small market compared to LA (thus being less attractive to attract free agents and even more so older stars), and they did most of this run mostly being under the cap (being a small market obviously had a lot to do with it).

I also agree that the abortion that the Lakers were between 04-07 is a serious detriment to their claims. The head to head between the Spurs and the Lakers would look a lot different if they would have played the Spurs instead of the Suns in the first round those years. The Spurs have been consistently dominant for the last 10 years, the Lakers simply have not. That they have had to rebuild their team midway through the decade says a lot of their decline. That they were successful rebuilding doesn't invalidate that assertion.

[td4mvp21]

Only if they win the title this year. Until then, you kind of jumped the gun.

[cobbler]

I think the three year window beginning from Shaq's Departure to Kobe's public demand for a trade pretty much dismisses the Lakers from any SERIOUS consideration.

A team of the decade can't be a punching bag for 3 seasons in the middle of the decade.

Why does that matter? Titles is the measuring stick.

And as you will soon find out to the contrary, 3 years to get your team back into a contender is nothing.

[Warlord23]

Official: 21_faggots is still a bandwagoning bitch who doesn't know how many NBA titles the Lakers have won

Official: 21_faggots still takes it up the poophole

[resistanze]

The Lakers won 2 titles this decade. Real talk.

[samikeyp]

Not yet.

About mid-June, yes.

[DrHouse]

Stupid thread.

Spurs are the most consistent team of this decade. We're probably looking at the end of their era though unless they can pull a rabbit out of the hat in the offseason.

[mytespurs]

...all about stirring the pot.....kicking a wounded duck that has already expired.......:rolleyes

The end results = championships. With the exception of the Pistons, Heat and Celtics, the Spurs or the Lakers have won the titles this decade; the Spurs 4 and the Lakers 3. Lakers are expected to win the title this year so they'd be even....in this decade therefore it is a draw......so be it. :hat

[KSeal]

...all about stirring the pot.....kicking a wounded duck that has already expired.......:rolleyes

The end results = championships. With the exception of the Pistons, Heat and Celtics, the Spurs or the Lakers have won the titles this decade; the Spurs 4 and the Lakers 3. Lakers are expected to win the title this year so they'd be even....in this decade therefore it is a draw......so be it. :hat

1999 was last decade hence the 9 is the three spot not a 0, so if the Lakers were to win the championship this year it would be Lakers 4, Spurs 3 for this decade, sorry.

[JamStone]

The 2000 title is for the 1999-2000 season. That's still the 90s to me.

The current NBA decade should start 2000-01.

Lakers have two titles this decade. The Spurs have three.

[KSeal]

The 2000 title is for the 1999-2000 season. That's still the 90s to me.

The current NBA decade should start 2000-01.

Lakers have two titles this decade. The Spurs have three.

The Lakers won their first title in June of 2000, they have three rings this decade.

[nhan]

The simple fact that the Lakers can even be mentioned in this discussion after trading away Shaq is amazing.

No, its not amazing when you have Pau Gasol handed right to you. Pau Gasol for not even ONE of your TOP TEN players. SERIOUSLY? Any team would've offered more. Spurs would offer their next FIVE first rounders for Pau Gasol! That trade made zero sense for the Grizzlies.

[Bobsyeruncle]

You really are an idiot, you know that?

*cue in shot about being a Mavs fan*
Talk about idiots. Do you still stand by what you said last year (scroll down to my sig if you don't remember, or are you trying to block it out of your mind?)?

Still having your Dirk-gasms?:rollin

[KSeal]

No, its not amazing when you have Pau Gasol handed right to you. Pau Gasol for not even ONE of your TOP TEN players. SERIOUSLY? Any team would've offered more. Spurs would offer their next FIVE first rounders for Pau Gasol! That trade made zero sense for the Grizzlies.

Marc Gasol, who was involved in that Pau trade is basically a physical version of Pau, is only 24 years old and will be an all star in no time, book it. The Lakers also traded two first round picks and expiring contracts that Memphis desperately wanted. That trade made perfect sense for Memphis and isn't nearly as one sided as everyone likes to believe. In one year Marc > Pau.

[resistanze]

The Lakers won their first title in June of 2000, they have three rings this decade.
I've never seen anyone classify the beginning of a decade from the last year of the previous decade.

The first season of the decade should start in 2000.

[[email protected]]

2000 LA
2001 LA
2002 LA
2003 SAS
2004 DP
2005 SAS
2006 MH
2007 SAS
2008 BC
So i think it was la lakers and the san antonio spurs team of the decade.:wow

[nhan]

Marc Gasol, who was involved in that Pau trade is basically a physical version of Pau, is only 24 years old and will be an all star in no time, book it. The Lakers also traded two first round picks and expiring contracts that Memphis desperately wanted. That trade made perfect sense for Memphis and isn't nearly as one sided as everyone likes to believe. In one year Marc > Pau.

Two first round picks that are late-first rounders. Those are pretty worthless. Expiring contracts to sign who exactly? Waiting for 2010? Well no ones going to wanna come to Memphis. Don't even tell me Marc Gasol is better than Pau Gasol. Now you're just talking out of your ass.

[holcs50]

The 2000 title is for the 1999-2000 season. That's still the 90s to me.

The current NBA decade should start 2000-01.

Lakers have two titles this decade. The Spurs have three.

I agree. I think you start the decade on the 2000-2001 season. You start counting at 1 to 10....not 0-10. 99-00 season is the end of the last decade IMO.

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

I think the three year window beginning from Shaq's Departure to Kobe's public demand for a trade pretty much dismisses the Lakers from any SERIOUS consideration.

A team of the decade can't be a punching bag for 3 seasons in the middle of the decade.

So I guess having gaps between championships would take the Spurs and Lakers out of the equation, but wait Lakers have the only three-peat this decade so they're back in it.

[Strike]

According to Spurfans: Titles > anything else. So if the Lakers win 4 this decade, it's theirs. I mean, you always hear them boast about 4 titles:)

I'd have to mostly agree. I'd go with titles being the ultimate yardstick. In the case of a tie I'd go with overall winning percentage, both season and playoffs as the tiebreaker.

If the Lakers win this year (which I'm now rooting for), no contest. If not, it's destined to be a never ending debate. Both the Lakers and Spurs have good arguments as it currently sits. Personally, I don't know and I'm too tired to put a shit-ton of thought into it.

[Strike]

Marc Gasol, who was involved in that Pau trade is basically a physical version of Pau, is only 24 years old and will be an all star in no time, book it. The Lakers also traded two first round picks and expiring contracts that Memphis desperately wanted. That trade made perfect sense for Memphis and isn't nearly as one sided as everyone likes to believe. In one year Marc > Pau.

If you (the general "you", not you personally) argue the trade based on personnel only, LA had the clear advantage in the trade. But Memphis apparently got what they wanted with the draft picks and the expiring contracts so any argument is moot in my opinion.

[mytespurs]

1999 was last decade hence the 9 is the three spot not a 0, so if the Lakers were to win the championship this year it would be Lakers 4, Spurs 3 for this decade, sorry.

Thanks for that tidbit....my view...both teams got in done multiple times within the ten year period from 1999 through 2009 so I don't view one as being necessarily better than the other.

[Capt Bringdown]

No, its not amazing when you have Pau Gasol handed right to you. Pau Gasol for not even ONE of your TOP TEN players. SERIOUSLY? Any team would've offered more. Spurs would offer their next FIVE first rounders for Pau Gasol! That trade made zero sense for the Grizzlies.

Exactly. What an extraordinary piece of "luck" that trade was for the Lakers.

I don't think there's a conspirarcy, but it is interesting how different the NBA's business model is different from the other leagues.

I really don't think Stern wants parity, nor, going by the TV ratings, does the average/casual fan. They want to tune in to watch another Bulls/Jordan scenario - which is what they might be getting, as the Lakers seem to be poised to run off a string of titles, and Kobe will be enshrined as Jordan jr.
Simple narratives sell.

[E20]

More like team of the millennium

[Trainwreck2100]

Way to shit the bed in the 1st round SA. :flag:

that's the stupidest reasoning ever LA lost to pho 2wice once in the 1st round

[SouthTexasRancher]

Way to shit the bed in the 1st round SA. :flag:

ROTFFLMFAO@U

Team of the decade...LOL

LA Fakers getting their asses kicked big, big, big time by both the Detroit Pistons who the REAL Team of the DECADE (SA Spurs) beat the following year and then by the Boston Celtics last year which alongside of the 2006 Dallas Mavs, were the most embarrASSing loses in NBA Finals history!!! I am laughing my ass off! What a LOSER!!! Better luck next time, kiddo...

Besides we won 4 trophys in that 10 year span and the LA Fakers only won 3. Typical lack of math by people from LA as we see nightly on Jay Leno's Jay Walking where the dumbest people on the planet get exposed by Jay. Do people in LA even go to school???

[SouthTexasRancher]

So I guess having gaps between championships would take the Spurs and Lakers out of the equation, but wait Lakers have the only three-peat this decade so they're back in it.


And your Fakers in the last 10 years have the two most embarrASSing LOSSES in NBA history. Too funny!

[SouthTexasRancher]

BTW, don't you Faker fans have anyone smart enough to create your own sports talk forum? You'd think that with 20 million illiterates in the Los Angeles Metro area that you could put enough gray material to make one brain! Just a thought...oh well.

[j-money24]

lol morons, who think the Lakers only have 2 championships, the Lakers won their first title in June 2000, which is in the middle of the year.

[JamStone]

lol morons, who think the Lakers only have 2 championships, the Lakers won their first title in June 2000, which is in the middle of the year.

Count up to 10. What's the first number you start with? Zero?

[SouthTexasRancher]

The Lakers won their first title in June of 2000, they have three rings this decade.


Like I said, there is not one complete brain between all 20 million of you LA Idiots. I don't understand how so many can be so dumb!!! A decade is ten (10) years and can start on any date. Thus 1999-2009 is a decade, dumbfuk. Sheeeesh girls, give us Spurs fans a break from your stupidity!


A Decade is:

dec·ade http://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/t/pron.jpg (http://education.yahoo.com/ref/dictionary/audio/d/0065400.wav;_ylt=Aql.Tm0JGpa5pBSbwmEHnmiugMMF) (dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gifkhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gifhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif, dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gif-khttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif) KEY (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/pronunciation_key;_ylt=AmYJv.k2pclJXeZ4IHQ9rm.ugMM F)

NOUN:


A period of ten years.
A group or series of ten.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, a group of ten, from Old French, from Late Latin decas , decad-, from Greek dekas, from deka, ten; see dekhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/mlowring.gif in Indo-European roots



San Antonio SPURS: 4 Championships 1999-2009

LaLa Land Fakers: 3 Championships 2000-2001-2002

LaLa Land Fakers: 2 EmbarASSing Loses NBA Finals 2004 & 2008

LaLa Land Fakers: About to make it 3 EmbarrASSing Loses when they lose to the Cleveland Cavs.

[SouthTexasRancher]

lol morons, who think the Lakers only have 2 championships, the Lakers won their first title in June 2000, which is in the middle of the year.


Yo, hello there Moron! Put your crack pipe down and pay attention!


Like I said, there is not one complete brain between all 20 million of you LA Idiots. I don't understand how so many can be so dumb!!! A decade is ten (10) years and can start on any date. Thus 1999-2009 is a decade, dumbfuk. Sheeeesh girls, give us Spurs fans a break from your stupidity!


A Decade is:

dec·ade http://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/t/pron.jpg (http://education.yahoo.com/ref/dictionary/audio/d/0065400.wav;_ylt=Aql.Tm0JGpa5pBSbwmEHnmiugMMF) (dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gifkhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gifhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif, dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gif-khttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif) KEY (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/pronunciation_key;_ylt=AmYJv.k2pclJXeZ4IHQ9rm.ugMM F)

NOUN:


A period of ten years.
A group or series of ten.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, a group of ten, from Old French, from Late Latin decas , decad-, from Greek dekas, from deka, ten; see dekhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/mlowring.gif in Indo-European roots



San Antonio SPURS: 4 Championships 1999-2009

LaLa Land Fakers: 3 Championships 2000-2001-2002

LaLa Land Fakers: 2 EmbarASSing Loses NBA Finals 2004 & 2008

LaLa Land Fakers: About to make it 3 EmbarrASSing Loses when they lose to the Cleveland Cavs.

[JamStone]

I'll criticize that the same way though. The Spurs 1999 championship was for the 1998-99 season. If you end the decade with the current season (2008-09), then the first season/year of this past decade is 1999-2000, not 1998-99. If you want to include the Spurs 1999 championship, you would claim the decade from 1998-99 to 2007-08 and not include this current season or you have to say 1999-2000 to the current season 2008-09. It cannot be 1999-2009. That's 11 years. Not a decade.

I'm just saying. I'm neutral in this. I don't favor either side.

[KSeal]

Like I said, there is not one complete brain between all 20 million of you LA Idiots. I don't understand how so many can be so dumb!!! A decade is ten (10) years and can start on any date. Thus 1999-2009 is a decade, dumbfuk. Sheeeesh girls, give us Spurs fans a break from your stupidity!


A Decade is:

dec·ade http://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/t/pron.jpg (http://education.yahoo.com/ref/dictionary/audio/d/0065400.wav;_ylt=Aql.Tm0JGpa5pBSbwmEHnmiugMMF) (dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gifkhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gifhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/lprime.gif, dhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/ebreve.gif-khttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/amacr.gifdhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/prime.gif) KEY (http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/pronunciation_key;_ylt=AmYJv.k2pclJXeZ4IHQ9rm.ugMM F)

NOUN:


A period of ten years.
A group or series of ten.

ETYMOLOGY:
Middle English, a group of ten, from Old French, from Late Latin decas , decad-, from Greek dekas, from deka, ten; see dekhttp://l.yimg.com/a/i/edu/ref/ahd/s/mlowring.gif in Indo-European roots



San Antonio SPURS: 4 Championships 1999-2009

LaLa Land Fakers: 3 Championships 2000-2001-2002

LaLa Land Fakers: 2 EmbarASSing Loses NBA Finals 2004 & 2008

LaLa Land Fakers: About to make it 3 EmbarrASSing Loses when they lose to the Cleveland Cavs.


We're talking team of the decade as in the 2000s, not the decade of the 1990s. We're not talking team of the last eleven years, we're talking team of the 2000s, team of this decade, the Bulls were the team of the 90s decade, 1990-1999, then the Lakers or Spurs are the team of the 2000-2009 decade, then the next team of the decade will be from 2010-2019, then the next team of the decade will be from 2020-2029. The Spurs 1999 ring has nothing to do with the 2000 decade so it's three for the Lakers and three for the Spurs. Even if the Lakers got destroyed two times in the finals it's two more times then the Spurs even got there this decade so who really cares what happened when they got there.

[Budkin]

Look who started the thread. No need to read further.

[SouthTexasRancher]

I'll criticize that the same way though. The Spurs 1999 championship was for the 1998-99 season. If you end the decade with the current season (2008-09), then the first season/year of this past decade is 1999-2000, not 1998-99. If you want to include the Spurs 1999 championship, you would claim the decade from 1998-99 to 2007-08 and not include this current season or you have to say 1999-2000 to the current season 2008-09. It cannot be 1999-2009. That's 11 years. Not a decade.

I'm just saying. I'm neutral in this. I don't favor either side.


Since neither the Fakers nor the Spurs won it last year then make it 1998-1999 to 2007-2008. However, the National Media, coaches, GM's, owners and players in the NBA consider it to be the Spurs by winning 4 Championships in a ten (10) year period. Even the NFL talks about what the Spurs managed to do.

Either way the Fakers lost twice in the NBA Finals during the period of 1999-2000 to 2008-2009 and were embarrassed both times. That alone disqualifies them as the team of the decade. The Fakers sure don't want to get embarrassed a third time this season. LeBron & Co. want it bad after getting swept by the Spurs in 2007.

[SouthTexasRancher]

We're talking team of the decade as in the 2000s, not the decade of the 1990s. We're not talking team of the last eleven years, we're talking team of the 2000s, team of this decade, the Bulls were the team of the 90s decade, 1990-1999, then the Lakers or Spurs are the team of the 2000-2009 decade, then the next team of the decade will be from 2010-2019, then the next team of the decade will be from 2020-2029. The Spurs 1999 ring has nothing to do with the 2000 decade so it's three for the Lakers and three for the Spurs. Even if the Lakers got destroyed two times in the finals it's two more times then the Spurs even got there this decade so who really cares what happened when they got there.


Put the crack pipe down and go to bed.

[SouthTexasRancher]

Look who started the thread. No need to read further.


I don't know why I even bother. They are now rewriting dictionaries. I'm outta here!

[SouthTexasRancher]

Are you seriously calling me a dumb fuck while telling me a decade is ten years and then going on to say that 1999-2009 is a decade when that is eleven years, wow, it's truly amazing how retarded you are. Stop to make sure you aren't a retarded fuckfaced moron, like you are, before you start calling other people stupid, you dumbass.


Read all the posts. Start with the stupid post #1.

Go with 2000-today and here is what you get:

SA Spurs 3-0

LA Fakers 3-2

However, like I just posted the NBA & NFL look at the Spurs as the most impressive franchise since 1998-1999 and all have been saying it through this season.

Do what ever rocks your boat.

[daslicer]

Exactly. What an extraordinary piece of "luck" that trade was for the Lakers.

I don't think there's a conspirarcy, but it is interesting how different the NBA's business model is different from the other leagues.

I really don't think Stern wants parity, nor, going by the TV ratings, does the average/casual fan. They want to tune in to watch another Bulls/Jordan scenario - which is what they might be getting, as the Lakers seem to be poised to run off a string of titles, and Kobe will be enshrined as Jordan jr.
Simple narratives sell.

Too bad it won't give them the ratings MJ's bulls did. That crap doesn't work you can't recreate something from the past and expect it to have the same buzz it did 10 years ago. MJ was an icon equivalent elvis, babe ruth, Ali, that everybody came out to see. I think that's Sterns biggest marketing mistake which is he doesn't realize MJ was a once in life time player. To me Kobe is like Tommy Gunn from Rocky 5 that he could win 5 titles in a row and still wouldn't generate the buzz MJ did much like Tommy Gunn still didn't get any hype when he wont the heavy weight belt in the movie. Stern = dumbass he needs to look at the NFL model for marketing.

[KSeal]

Read all the posts. Goodnight!

:lmao

Yeah, go to sleep you retard.

[Medvedenko]

Lakers team of the decade is questionable and will come down to the title this year.

Oh and player of the decade is already Kobe. When we look back it's Kobe's decade for good and for bad. He's the player people will talk about and the player people will scorn for the same reasons.

[Spursfan092120]

SA was in the playoffs every year of the decade.
SA advanced past the 1st round 9/10 times in the decade.
SA won as many championships as anyone else this decade (3).
SA had HCA in the 1st round every single year.

LA won 3 titles.
LA made the playoffs 9/10 times this decade.
LA advanced to 5 NBA Finals.
LA advanced past the 1st round 7/10 times this decade.

It is close, but on consistency, SA seems to edge the Lakers out, unless they can pull an upset to beat the Cavs.

Cleveland over Denver in 6. Book it.
Actually, the decade that we're in includes 1999 still...so the Spurs have 4 titles.. :)

[Spursfan092120]

So I guess having gaps between championships would take the Spurs and Lakers out of the equation, but wait Lakers have the only three-peat this decade so they're back in it.
Yeah..but at the same time...you can't be a team of the decade and have a year in that decade where you don't make the playoffs, and go 7 years without a title. That takes it away. If there is a team of the decade, it's SA...

[Spursfan092120]

People...we're talking about the team of the decade. A decade is 10 years...it's 2009..that means 10 years includes 1999..it's not 2010 yet..

[DrHouse]

If the Lakers win it all this year they become TOTD.

4 titles, 6 Finals appearances.

[Spursfan092120]

If the Lakers win it all this year they become TOTD.

4 titles, 6 Finals appearances.
I can agree the Lakers will take the lead in the TOTD if they win it this year, but if that's the case, we have to include 2010 also...so next year matters as well.

[kamikazi_player]

Here's your guys answer, Spurs and the Lakers are the teams of the decade.

[Spursfan092120]

Here's your guys answer, Spurs and the Lakers are the teams of the decade.
:tu

[J.T.]

Choking in the Finals overrides actually making it there.

Spurs win % in the Finals: 1.000
Lakers win % in Finals: sure as fuck not 1.000

Spurs > Lakers

[La Peace]

Making it to the finals is better than not even making it out of the west.

And decade team is neither.

[Jacob1983]

The Lakers were dominant this decade than the Spurs. That 2001 WCF proves it.

[Jacob1983]

Not repeating when you had 3 tries to do it this decade is worse than the Lakers losing twice this decade in the Finals.

[bdictjames]

No team's decade. Its Duncan's and Shaq's decade.

[The Franchise]

21 reasons to support abortion.

[TheManFromAcme]

Sons, Sons! Enough with the bickering. :blah :nope

Being that many in here are having a hard time defining "a typical 10 year span" to call their own, I propose this:

Who has won the most championships the last 30 years? :wow

Your Los Angeles Lakers of course. :king

I know, stupid comment but what the heck.
Like Doc House mentioned, I'll also give the edge to the Spurs. They have indeed been in the hunt more than the Lakers these past 10 years. It is what it is. They have 3 and we have 3 the last 120 months. The good news?
Our window is wide open and should contest for at least 3-5 years.

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

Choking in the Finals overrides actually making it there.

Spurs win % in the Finals: 1.000
Lakers win % in Finals: sure as fuck not 1.000

Spurs > Lakers

But still making it to the Finals 29 and taking 14 of them ain't bad either. You can't win them all. Boston has more titles, but they also lost in some finals. Are you saying that Larry Bird and Magic Johnson suck cause they lost in some finals, no I don't think so. So losing in the finals happen to best one, except MJ. I'll give you that, Spurs have a winning % in the Finals, but 4, fucking wow!!!! At least my Lakers made it to the finals in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, no 90's thanks once again to MJ, and 00's. So it's all good if you don't have us as the totd.

[Allanon]

Spurs have the edge as of April 2009, even with the same number of Rings.

June 2009 might sway things over to the Lakers.

[mytespurs]

Here's your guys answer, Spurs and the Lakers are the teams of the decade.

THANK YOU! Couldn't have said it better myself; all this other talk is basically splitting a pea.

[Spursfan092120]

Making it to the finals is better than not even making it out of the west.

And decade team is neither.
what about not making the playoffs at all? Or going 7 years in between titles?..maybe more..you still haven't won it this year. There's nothing you can say that would put LA over the top of the Spurs as TOTD right now..period.

[Spursfan092120]

The Lakers were dominant this decade than the Spurs. That 2001 WCF proves it.
Wow...noobie noobie noobie. In the last 10 years Lakers have less titles, been to the playoffs less times, and haven't won a title since 2002. Spurs, on the other hand, have won more titles, been the the playoffs EVERY YEAR, and before this year, have won the title pretty much every other year...one series does not decide the whole decade.

[Morg1411]

This thread is further proof that Laker fans love to stroke themselves.

[Killakobe81]

This TOTD talk is childish who cares?! Does that take anything away from what tHe spurs did?
Those that argue Lakers are not because they miss a playoff year ... good point but unfair ...it actually is silly because Lakers deserve credit for turning things around ...just like spurs did when they drafted duncan.

Those that say the spurs are not a dynasty are foolish as well.
The celts were a 80's dynasty but yet they didn't win back 2 back either ..so the pistons, bulls and 00's Lakers are better than the 80's Celts or the pre 87-88 Lakers because they did not win back to back? Foolishness ...

Bottom line Lakers have most Final appearances they are tied for tiles THIS decade ...Spurs have more playoff appearances ...both top notch organizations ...

Better question is who is player of this decade Magic is the 80's best, Jordan ran the 90's
00's is either Duncan, kobe or Shaq ... i lean towards Duncan ...BUT Kobe and Shaq have 2 years left to change my mind ....

[Killakobe81]

This thread is further proof that Laker fans love to stroke themselves.

hypocrisy ...yes OP did get this ball roling but spur fan took the bait ...

[KSeal]

Lets just give this decade to the Spurs (even though it's the Lakers), they'll probably never get anywhere close to having a team of a decade again, where as the Lakers have proven they can win multiple championships in multiple decades.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Choking in the Finals overrides actually making it there.

No it doesn't. That's retarded.

Threads started by 21_Palins seem to bring out the stupid in people.

[Agloco]

Way to shit the bed in the 1st round SA. :flag:

What a fucking moronic post. Go figure, it's a laker fan.......

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Backdoor fucking sweep!!!!

[Agloco]

The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round. The Spurs however have 1 embarrassing 1st round exit. 3 seed choking to the 6 seed.



And that confirms it.......

Dropped on your head a few too many times as a child?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

The Lakers don't have an embarrassing 1st round

http://espn.go.com/photo/2006/0520/nba_g_thomas_395.jpg

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/timmy(14).jpg

[DrHouse]

The Lakers lost in the 1st round to a team that was better than they were. Not much shame in that IMHO.

It's debatable whether or not the Mavs were a better team on paper than the Spurs this season.

[Allanon]

http://espn.go.com/photo/2006/0520/nba_g_thomas_395.jpg

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/timmy(14).jpg

2005-2007 Phoenix Suns were one of the three teams (Spurs, Mavs) that dominated that period.

No embarrassment losing to any 3 of those teams with Smush, Kwame & Luke as starters.

Suns beat the team they were supposed to beat.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

The Lakers lost in the 1st round to a team that was better than they were. Not much shame in that IMHO.

It's debatable whether or not the Mavs were a better team on paper than the Spurs this season.

Whether or not either team lost to the team that was better, IMHO it doesn't matter. Losing in the first round is losing in the first round when you're arguing about which teams were better over a time period.

I was merely pointing out wrong 21_retard's statement about the Lakers not having an embarrassing first round series this decade was.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

2005-2007 Phoenix Suns were one of the three teams (Spurs, Mavs) that dominated that period.

No embarrassment losing to any 3 of those teams with Smush, Kwame & Luke as starters.

When you have a 3-1 series lead it's embarrassing to lose no matter what team you're playing.

[ElNono]

when you have a 3-1 series lead it's embarrassing to lose no matter what team you're playing.

+1

[Spursfan092120]

Lets just give this decade to the Spurs (even though it's the Lakers), they'll probably never get anywhere close to having a team of a decade again, where as the Lakers have proven they can win multiple championships in multiple decades.
OK...here we go..I've never heard a decent, factual statement come out of your mouth since you've been here..so I have to ask you..in what way is the last 10 years belonging to the Lakers...one decade is 10 years..so here we go.. 1999-2009

Titles
Lakers - 3
Spurs - 4

Playoffs
Lakers - missed one year
Spurs - missed none

Lakers also haven't won a title since 2002, while the Spurs have won 3 since then. The Spurs also went undefeated in the Finals. Now...explain to me how it's possible that the TOTD at this point is the Lakers? Even your own fellow Laker fans admit that right now, it belongs to the Spurs. It'll be even if the Lakers win it this year.

[Allanon]

When you have a 3-1 series lead it's embarrassing to lose no matter what team you're playing.

I don't believe that. I think it's more about the Lakers overachieving and the Suns underachieving to get to 3-1.

But once the Suns decided to win, it was all over.

It's similar to the way the Lakers lose leads these days. The Lakers play great, screw around with the opponent, lose the lead (or close) and then clamp down at the end to scrape out a win.

The Lakers only had 1 guy who was better than his Suns counterpart and that was Kobe. And the Suns knew they could beat the Lakers at any time.

Suns toyed with the Lakers until it was time to clamp down and win.

[ElNono]

I don't believe that. I think it's more about the Lakers overachieving and the Suns underachieving to get to 3-1.

But once the Suns decided to win, it was all over.

It's similar to the way the Lakers lose leads these days. The Lakers play great, screw around with the opponent, lose the lead (or close) and then clamp down at the end to scrape out a win.

Suns toyed with the Lakers until it was time to clamp down and win.

Kind of like how they lost the last two NBA Championships? They were the better team but they didn't try hard enough? GTFO

[Allanon]

Kind of like how they lost the last two NBA Championships? They were the better team but they didn't try hard enough? GTFO

The Suns or the Lakers?

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Suns did not toy with the Lakers Allanon. The Suns were starting Boris Diaw at center, the team LA played was not very good at all. That's more ridiculous than the CIA Pop retards on this site.

[ElNono]

The Suns or the Lakers?

I'm sorry, I don't believe the Suns made it to the NBA Finals the past decade...

[stretch]

I don't believe that. I think it's more about the Lakers overachieving and the Suns underachieving to get to 3-1.

But once Kobe decided to give up on his team, it was all over.

It's similar to the way the Lakers lose leads these days. The Lakers play great, screw around with the opponent, lose the lead (or close) and then clamp down at the end to scrape out a win. Unless Kobe gives up on his team, which is something he has done on a regular basis, and shouldn't be a suprize to see.

The Lakers only had 1 guy who was better than his Suns counterpart and that was Kobe. And the Suns knew they could beat the Lakers once Kobe would show his true colors and give up on his team.

Suns toyed with the Lakers until it was time for Kobe to give up on the Lakers.

Fixed.

[Allanon]

Suns did not toy with the Lakers Allanon. The Suns were starting Boris Diaw at center, the team LA played was not very good at all. That's more ridiculous than the CIA Pop retards on this site.

That same team went on to the Conference Finals.

2006
Boris Diaw >>>> Kwame Brown
Shawn Marion > Lamar Odom
James Jones >> Luke Walton
Raja Bell <<<< Kobe Bryant
Steve Nash >>>>>>>>>> Smush Parker

[Muser]

Official? Has the NBA released an official statement saying this?

[Allanon]

I'm sorry, I don't believe the Suns made it to the NBA Finals the past decade...

I'm not sure what your point is then?

The Celtics were better than the Lakers last year and won the Finals. Not sure why you're making it sound like I am making excuses for that loss, I never mentioned it.

[resistanze]

You can't really say the Suns were toying with the Lakers.

Weren't the Suns a Tim Thomas 3-pointer away from being eliminated in game 6? Must be some REALLY cocky motherfuckers.

[Allanon]

You can't really say the Suns were toying with the Lakers.

Weren't the Suns a Tim Thomas 3-pointer away from being eliminated in game 6? Must be some REALLY cocky motherfuckers.

That's game 6.

The Lakers were up 3-1 before the Suns woke up.

Nobody expected a Laker team with Smush/Luke/Kwame to beat the Suns, that would have been an epic upset like the Mavs/Warriors.

[stretch]

That same team went on to the Conference Finals.

2007
Boris Diaw >>>> Kwame Brown
Shawn Marion > Lamar Odom
James Jones >> Luke Walton
Raja Bell <<<< Kobe Bryant
Steve Nash >>>>>>>>>> Smush Parker

You kidding me? Odom OWNS Shawn Marion. And James Jones sucked as much ass as Luke Walton. Kwame had some good and bad moments in that series. But when Kobe trusted him (early in the series) he was able to contribute. Later in the series, when Kobe was being a selfish prick, the whole team changed. That series was all about Kobe. When he was being a good teammate, they jumped out. After he hit those two buzzer beaters in game 4, he turned back into the selfish jerk he was.

[ElNono]

I'm not sure what your point is then?

The Celtics were better than the Lakers last year and won the Finals. Not sure why you're making it sound like I am making excuses for that loss, I never mentioned it.

I was commenting about this part:


It's similar to the way the Lakers lose leads these days.

It sounded to me like you're trying to say this Lakers team didn't win a championship yet because they slack, even though they're the better team.

I do agree with your contention that they lost to a better team.

[Allanon]

It sounded to me like you're trying to say this Lakers team didn't win a championship yet because they slack, even though they're the better team.

I do agree with your contention that they lost to a better team.

Not at all, I don't make excuses about the Lakers/Celtics series. The Celtics were the better team.

I don't cry about refs either.

[ElNono]

Honestly, I don't think any team willingly goes down 1-3 in any series. Toying or not toying. You could say giving up a game, but put yourself in a position to face elimination?
Sorry, I don't think so. And the Lakers could have absolutely won that series. Those Suns never played a lick of defense.

[resistanze]

That's game 6.
And? They were one game away from advancing be it game 5, 6 or 7. And it's certainly understandable they would lose game 5 on the road to a desperate team.


The Lakers were up3-1 before the Suns woke up.
How do you say they 'woke up' when they were seconds away form being eliminated? It took an offensive rebound they should've had gotten and a 3 pointer by Tim Thomas to win game 6. And let's not even talk about game 7 and Kobe.


The Lakers were up3-1 before the Suns woke up.Nobody expected a Laker team with Smush/Luke/Kwame to beat the Suns, that would have been an epic upset like the Mavs/Warriors.
Not as big of an upset, but an upset nonetheless. I still don't get what that has to do with blowing a 3-1 lead and blowing game 6 in the final seconds.

[Allanon]

You kidding me? Odom OWNS Shawn Marion. And James Jones sucked as much ass as Luke Walton. Kwame had some good and bad moments in that series. But when Kobe trusted him (early in the series) he was able to contribute. Later in the series, when Kobe was being a selfish prick, the whole team changed. That series was all about Kobe. When he was being a good teammate, they jumped out. After he hit those two buzzer beaters in game 4, he turned back into the selfish jerk he was.

The Suns were clearly the MUCH better team.

And 2006 Shawn Marion was better than 2006 Lamar Odom. Hell, if the Laker fans had it their way, they would have skinned and flogged Lamar Odom in 2006.

Only this year, 2009 has LO gotten any love and nobody says Shawn Marion is better than Odom anymore.

[La Peace]

what about not making the playoffs at all? Or going 7 years in between titles?..maybe more..you still haven't won it this year. There's nothing you can say that would put LA over the top of the Spurs as TOTD right now..period.


And team of the decade is neither

[Allanon]

And? They were one game away from advancing be it game 5, 6 or 7. And it's certainly understandable they would lose game 5 on the road to a desperate team.

The Lakers were stomped in Game 1 by the Suns. The Suns relaxed and went on to lose 3 straight.

After Game 4, the Suns won 3 straight.



How do you say they 'woke up' when they were seconds away form being eliminated? It took an offensive rebound they should've had gotten and a 3 pointer by Tim Thomas to win game 6. And let's not even talk about game 7 and Kobe.

Not as big of an upset, but an upset nonetheless. I still don't get what that has to do with blowing a 3-1 lead and blowing game 6 in the final seconds.

Even good teams win by the skin of their teeth, just like this year's Lakers team.

The Lakers are a much better team than the Jazz this year, yet they blew huge leads due to complacency, just because they knew they were the better team.

Not much different than the Suns blowing out the Lakers in Game 1, then sit on their laurels.

That Suns team was far superior to the Lakers, and they knew it.

[stretch]

The Suns were clearly the MUCH better team.

And 2006 Shawn Marion was better than 2006 Lamar Odom. Hell, if the Laker fans had it their way, they would have skinned and flogged Lamar Odom in 2006.

Only this year, 2009 has LO gotten any love and nobody says Shawn Marion is better than Odom anymore.

I never thought Marion was better than Odom. And in that series, Odom outplayed Marion.

[resistanze]

The Lakers were stomped in Game 1 by the Suns. The Suns relaxed and went on to lose 3 straight.

After Game 4, the Suns won 3 straight.

Even good teams win by the skin of their teeth, just like this year's Lakers team.

The Lakers are a much better team than the Jazz this year, yet they blew huge leads due to complacency, just because they knew they were the better team.

Not much different than the Suns blowing out the Lakers in Game 1, then sit on their laurels.

That Suns team was far superior to the Lakers, and they knew it.
And yet, the Lakers never lost 3 straight games to the Jazz, as complacent as you say they were. You don't lose three games because you're taking it easy.

And if there's one thing I remember in that series besides the incredible game 4 and Kobe quitting in game 7, it's Odom's dominance of Marion.

[Allanon]

And yet, the Lakers never lost 3 straight games to the Jazz, as complacent as you say they were. You don't lose three games because you're taking it easy.

Yet the Lakers didn't sweep because they were complacent. The Lakers should have won the series in 4. They had a 13 point lead in the fourth quarter but decided to screw around. The Lakers almost lost the last game as well, I think it was down to 3 points or something.

Complacency kills to varying degrees. But in the end, the Lakers beat the team they were supposed to beat, just like the Suns did.



And if there's one thing I remember in that series besides the incredible game 4 and Kobe quitting in game 7, it's Odom's dominance of Marion.

You and stretch are saying that and I don't honestly remember. But even if Lamar was better, the Suns were clearly better in 3 other starting positions. Not to mention the Suns bench was superior to the Lakers bench.

[ElNono]

Complacency kills to varying degrees. But in the end, the Lakers beat the team they were supposed to beat, just like the Suns did.

I still think the Lakers choked that series away.

[FaithInOne]

How cool rooting for a team saturated in money living in a shallow plastic big market.

Congrats douchebags.


Props to the cool Lakers fans.

[stretch]

You and stretch are saying that and I don't honestly remember.

Probably because you are a bandwagonner that just recently started pulling for the lakers. No suprizes there, as that is what the vast majority of the lakers fanbase consists of.

[crc21209]

There is no team of the decade.

My criteria is five rings in a ten year span.

If the Lake Show gets back to back this year and next..they are it..but not before.

:lol at your "criteria" Mr. Expert.

[Allanon]

Probably because you are a bandwagonner that just recently started pulling for the lakers. No suprizes there, as that is what the vast majority of the lakers fanbase consists of.

Nope, I've been a Laker bandwagoner since 2000, I've seen some of the best and 3 of the worst years.

I just try to forget the losing years as quickly as possible.

[Brazil]

How cool rooting for a team saturated in money living in a shallow plastic big market.

Congrats douchebags.


Props to the cool Lakers fans.

:lol

[Spur-Addict]

Probably because you are a bandwagonner that just recently started pulling for the lakers. No suprizes there, as that is what the vast majority of the lakers fanbase consists of.


Nope, I've been a Laker bandwagoner since 2000, I've seen some of the best and 3 of the worst years.

I just try to forget the losing years as quickly as possible.

That's all that really matters.

[KSeal]

How cool rooting for a team saturated in money living in a shallow plastic big market.

Congrats douchebags.


Props to the cool Lakers fans.

So if you're born and raised in LA you shouldn't root for your home town team?

[DrHouse]

The Lakers are the most popular team in the NBA. By that virtue alone they will have the largest percentage of "bandwagoners". They also have the largest percentage of real hardcore fans. And if you seriously don't think the Lakers have a dedicated fanbase you've never been to LA. We sell out Staples no matter how shitty the team is.

[Allanon]

That's all that really matters.

My parents had to move to Los Angeles because of a job in 2000.

I didn't have much choice in the matter.

I could have stayed with the Spurs but no way to watch them except on TNT/ABC a couple of times a year.

[Spur-Addict]

My parents had to move to Los Angeles because of a job. I didn't have much choice in the matter.

SO your location determines who you choose to follow, and not you? I see. I wonder how many other decisions the city of Los Angeles makes for you.

[Allanon]

SO your location determines who you choose to follow, and not you? I see. I wonder how many other decisions the city of Los Angeles makes for you.

I was a 16 year old kid.

1) Watch the Spurs play max 10 times a year
2) Watch the Lakers 82 games a year

I chose the Lakers. It was an easy decision.

[Spur-Addict]

I was a 16 year old kid.

1) Watch the Spurs play max 10 times a year
2) Watch the Lakers 82 games a year

I chose the Lakers. It was an easy decision.

So now your age is an excuse. That's fine, as I honestly do not care.

[Allanon]

So now your age is an excuse. That's fine, as I honestly do not care.

Sorry your highness, I didn't know 16 year olds had so many choices available to them.

[Spur-Addict]

Sorry your highness, I didn't know 16 year olds had so many choices available to them.

When I was that age I was a Spurs fan and I didn't have as many opportunities to watch them as I would've liked to. Yet, i'm still a Spurs fan. But whatever you must do to convince yourself is fine by me as it's you that you have to convince.

[Allanon]

When I was that age I was a Spurs fan and I didn't have as many opportunities to watch them as I would've liked to. Yet, i'm still a Spurs fan. But whatever you must do to convince yourself is fine by me as it's you that you have to convince.

We're in different situations. My family needed the money so they moved to Los Angeles.

Your family could probably afford to stay in San Antonio, but we couldn't. It's hard enough uprooting your life from Texas to Cali when you're 16. Staying loyal to the Spurs, missing most of them, was one of my smaller priorities, sorry.

[Spur-Addict]

We're in different situations. My family needed the money so they moved to Los Angeles.

Your family could probably afford to stay in San Antonio, but we couldn't. It's hard enough uprooting your life from Texas to Cali when you're 16. Staying loyal to the Spurs, missing most of them, was one of my smaller priorities, sorry.

I do not, and have never lived in San Antonio. Sorry about your appeal to pity rebuttle.

But i'm genuinely happy that things are better financially for you and your family.

[Spur-Addict]

Just to clarify, I am not apologizing in my previous post.

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

Obviously everybody is telling the story of how they want it to sound, not how the story was written. Some of you are interprenting decade as in 00's and others in a 10 year span. If you're going by 00's Then they're tied. if you go by a 10 year span. then it goes to the Spurs, but all that could change, If the Lakers could win it. They'll end up with 4, so yet again they'll tied. So for now leave it at that.

Now if the Lakers win this season and next season they're able to win a back to back. Then Spurs fans have to give it to the Lakers. No questions asked. Cause in a 10 year span Lakers would end up with five, and in a decade, not counting 2000 cause its part of 99' for some people, Lakers 4, Spurs 3. Only time would tell.

[Allanon]

I do not, and have never lived in San Antonio.

Great.

[Allanon]

Just to clarify, I am not apologizing in my previous post.

Just to clarify, I have no apologies for joining the Laker bandwagon in 2000 when my parents moved us to Los Angeles.

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

See, I feel the decade starts on a 1 year, so the 2000-01 season. When you count to 10, you don't start at 0. You start at 1. I say this decade starts at the 2000-01 season and ends on the 2009-10 season. If that's the case, the Lakers only have two NBA championships in this decade so far.

On your way of looking at things, Then the Lakers have won in every decade. In the 90's we lost to the Bulls in 91', but won it in 99'-00'.

[Spur-Addict]

Just to clarify, I have no apologies for joining the Laker bandwagon in 2000 when my parents moved us to Los Angeles.

That's cool, it's alright Al. I'm just stating an opinion that your reasons given are rather weak. But to each his/her own.

[Allanon]

That's cool, it's alright Al. I'm just stating an opinion that your reasons given are rather weak. But to each his/her own.

I can live with that. :toast

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

Don't worry Allanon, Keep rooting for whoever you want. Living in San Antonio, I deal with people telling me Lakers suck! this and that. Telling me to go back to LA, which I've lived in San Antonio almost all my life. But I do have a lot of family members over there, so it makes me want to move over there. And I only happened to lived over there for the years of 94-97, because of my father being transfered over there, but then transfered back. But I try to go over there twice a year.

[YellowFever]

:lol at your "criteria" Mr. Expert.

Laugh all you want, dude.

If it's good enough for that windbag Tommy Heinsohn, it's good enough for me.

So what's your definition of "team of the decade?"

I wait with bated breath. :wakeup

[Ice009]

Head to head is also a little dangerous.
While I think the following stat does hold true, you (and most others) might disagree:
Ben Wallace is 3 of 4 head-to-head against Shaq in the 00's.
I think most would say I just spun the truth by stating that fact. However, I do think Ben did in fact own Shaq. So even the head-to-heads are a little skewed.

HEAD TO HEAD means jack fucking shit.

2004 I put an * we are owed a game 7 at the very least.

Anyway forgetting about that for a bit it's 4-1, but what if the Spurs played the Lakers in the seasons you sucked it could very easily been 4-4 or even in the Spurs favor if you take away Fisher's shot that should not have counted. Last season Manu was hurt too so who knows how that series would have went if he was healthy. I think LA may have buckled cause they had players on the team that hadn't really faced any pressure situations before where they were expected to win.

Lakers fan don't take anything into consideration. Spurs have been consistent a lot longer and have been a Championship contender every single season up until this last season. We would have been this season too if Manu was healthy. There have been at least 3 seasons where the Lakers have NOT been a title contender and had no chance at all to win it.

I really don't get how Lakers fans think they have it wrapped up so easily.

[21_Blessings]

For posterity.

[Thundaluva]

The 2011-2020 decade will belong to OKC and it won't be an argument. Enjoy it now LA.

[21_Blessings]

The Thunder will be a rich man's version of the Blazers next decade. Which is basically the Lakers' playoff bitch but instead of the losing in an average of 5 games, it will be 6.

[IronMexican]

Thunder need a legit big before I really consider them anything. They might get into the playoffs, but it wont really matter without any bigs.

[Thundaluva]

The Thunder will be a rich man's version of the Blazers next decade. Which is basically the Lakers' playoff bitch but instead of the losing in an average of 5 games, it will be 6.

Thunder > Lakers
Thundaluva > Lakaluva

[Thundaluva]

Thunder need a legit big before I really consider them anything. They might get into the playoffs, but it wont really matter without any bigs.

Son you need to watch my sig which shows the next Hakeem Olajuwon only with Sean Kemp's athleticism. We're also getting James Harden who brings the savvy of a veteran. Basically Manu Ginobili only not a foreign douche.

[carrao45]

HEAD TO HEAD means jack fucking shit.

2004 I put an * we are owed a game 7 at the very least.

Anyway forgetting about that for a bit it's 4-1, but what if the Spurs played the Lakers in the seasons you sucked it could very easily been 4-4 or even in the Spurs favor if you take away Fisher's shot that should not have counted. Last season Manu was hurt too so who knows how that series would have went if he was healthy. I think LA may have buckled cause they had players on the team that hadn't really faced any pressure situations before where they were expected to win.

Lakers fan don't take anything into consideration. Spurs have been consistent a lot longer and have been a Championship contender every single season up until this last season. We would have been this season too if Manu was healthy. There have been at least 3 seasons where the Lakers have NOT been a title contender and had no chance at all to win it.

I really don't get how Lakers fans think they have it wrapped up so easily.

At some point the Manu injured excuse has to stop. He's hurt like every year, so it's obvious he cant be counted on