Are the Lakers, the NBA team of the Decade?

[spurscenter]

I didn't write the following saw it posted by a Laker fan.


Actually Spurs don't have 4 championships this decade (their first one was in 1999). Only 3 championships this decade... tied with the Lakers.

But the Lakers made it to the finals 6 times, compared to only 3 times for the Spurs this decade.

Compared to the 4 major sport in America, they are the TEAM of the DECADE.

(Tiger Woods is the individual Athlete of the Decade).



Aren't the Spurs 4 for 4 when going to the Finals?

Aren't the Lakers the ref's darlings (2001 and 2002)?


What you think?

[honestfool84]

the spurs are 4-0 in finals appearances IN THE LAST DECADE. (decade = 10 years 1999-2009 is 10 years)

the lakers are 3-3 in finals appearances.

i say the spurs are doing better.

[DMX7]

the spurs are 4-0 in finals appearances IN THE LAST DECADE. (decade = 10 years 1999-2009 is 10 years)

the lakers are 3-3 in finals appearances.

i say the spurs are doing better.

2000-2009 is a decade (that's 10 seasons)

I think you mean 3-2 in Finals appearances.

[TDMVPDPOY]

03/04 stern rig that fkn fakers team to the finals, cause he thought ppl wanted to see 4 future HOFs win a ring....fkn failed.

last year with the gasol trade and the celtics getting garnett at the start of the season....failed again

integrity of the sport? fuck integrity...viewership ratings is what matters....

[timtonymanu]

Lakers didnt make the playoffs in 05.
They lost in the first round the next 2 years.

They had 3 bad years. They also lost in the finals twice this decade.

Sure the Lakers had a 3 peat, but the Spurs up until this year had a consistent playoff run always making it to the second round. After the Lakers lost in 03, they went lower and lower until Gasoft was given to them. Every year this decade, the Spurs were always championship contenders.

[JWest596]

The Team of the Decade makes the playoffs every year.

They do not have lottery teams.

Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan never did.

The Kobe-led Lakers failed to make the playoffs in ths decade. .

Case closed.

All the rest are apologies and excuses .

[samikeyp]

It also depends when you start the decade. Is it the first season to be fully within the 00 decade (2000-01) or do you include a season that includes only part of the decade? (1999-00)?

There is no "Team of the Decade" award except in the minds of fans so I guess it can be tweaked anyway you want it to be.

[45 bank shot]

what about the winning percentage? the 10 season with 50+ plus wins?
I'd say spurs is team of the decade

[InK]

There is only one criterium, and that is the ring count. Its 3-3 now, its tied at this moment ( for a few more weeks). Everything else is just bullshit, but if u like to talk bs, then for sure Lakersfans have better bullshit material(repeat, 3-peat, 3 more times in the finals) then Spursfans do (regular season stats....rofl to people arguing this makes us better while laughing at Mavs fan for their 2007 PO fiasco with GSW in another thread ).

In no way shape or form are the Spurs the better franchise on paper this decade and that is that.

[samikeyp]

I don't know who the team of the decade is but I can tell you who the winningest (if that is even a word :lol) is.

Number of total wins (playoffs and regular season)

If you start the decade with the 99-00 season:
SA: 659
LA: 624


If you start with the 00-01 season:
SA: 605
LA: 542


The thing that matters the most in sports is winning your next game and the Spurs have done that the most over the period of time in question.

[Muser]

I couldn't really give a fuck about the team of the decade.

[TheProfessor]

I couldn't really give a fuck about the team of the decade.
:tu

[exstatic]

If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010. That gives the Lakers 2 titles 'this' decade to the Spurs 3. It also means they have one missed playoff and 2 first round outs to our 1 first round out.

:stirpot:

[exstatic]

If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010. That gives the Lakers 2 titles 'this' decade to the Spurs 3. It also means they have 1 missed playoff and 2 first round outs to our 1 first round out.

:stirpot:

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Plus remember that one first round LA exit where Kobe acted like a dying fetus and did not even take a shot attempt in the fourth quarter of the elimination game?

[Ice009]

There is only one criterium, and that is the ring count. Its 3-3 now, its tied at this moment ( for a few more weeks). Everything else is just bullshit, but if u like to talk bs, then for sure Lakersfans have better bullshit material(repeat, 3-peat, 3 more times in the finals) then Spursfans do (regular season stats....rofl to people arguing this makes us better while laughing at Mavs fan for their 2007 PO fiasco with GSW in another thread ).

In no way shape or form are the Spurs the better franchise on paper this decade and that is that.

The Spurs have been a Championship contender with a real shot to win the title every season this decade. The Lakers have had three seasons where they had no shot at all to win the Championship. So if it's tied at 3-3 wouldn't you say the Spurs who have been the most consistent team should be ranked higher? Why do the Lakers get a pass for three mediocre seasons? Plus in two of those seasons the Spurs could have easily won another two Championships. Fisher BS 0.4 and the Manu foul. You gotta weigh all that up.

Lakers are only back in it because of that ridiculous Gasol trade.

[dbestpro]

I think you can take it one step further. The Lakers are the team in history in all sports. That is the greatest choke team in history as they have lost more championship games that any other team in basketball, football or baseball.

[Horse]

Lakers didnt make the playoffs in 05.
They lost in the first round the next 2 years.

They had 3 bad years. They also lost in the finals twice this decade.

Sure the Lakers had a 3 peat, but the Spurs up until this year had a consistent playoff run always making it to the second round. After the Lakers lost in 03, they went lower and lower until Gasoft was given to them. Every year this decade, the Spurs were always championship contenders.
That right there seals it for me, the Spurs were among the favorites every year. lakers were up and down.

[Horse]

There is only one criterium, and that is the ring count. Its 3-3 now, its tied at this moment ( for a few more weeks). Everything else is just bullshit, but if u like to talk bs, then for sure Lakersfans have better bullshit material(repeat, 3-peat, 3 more times in the finals) then Spursfans do (regular season stats....rofl to people arguing this makes us better while laughing at Mavs fan for their 2007 PO fiasco with GSW in another thread ).

In no way shape or form are the Spurs the better franchise on paper this decade and that is that.
Fuck off go suck kobe cock!

[mytespurs]

My response: so what and who cares other than semantics for smack talk?

My view the Spurs have been successful for the most part since '99 season....winning seasons, playoffs, conference crowns, championships.....
nothing to discuss unless as I stated above one wants to get into semantics of smacktalk. :hat

[2Cleva]

Rings or bust. Both true Lakers and Spurs fans know that's all its about.

Whoever has the most rings wins - just as it should be.

[SA210]

F t l!

[DrHouse]

If the Lakers win it all this season they are team of the decade.

4 titles ('00, '01, '02, '09)
6 Finals appearances ('00, '01, '02, '04, '08, '09)

The Spurs will have 3 titles and 3 Finals appearances by the end of this decade ('00-'09).

3 titles ('03, '05, '07)
3 Finals appearances ('03, '05, '07)

Head to head matchups go to the Lakers 4-1.

The Spurs appear to be on the tail end of their run. Injuries might slam that window completely shut within a year or two.

[Texas_Ranger]

Nope.:)

[DeadlyDynasty]

If the Lakers win it all this season they are team of the decade.

4 titles ('00, '01, '02, '09)
6 Finals appearances ('00, '01, '02, '04, '08, '09)

The Spurs will have 3 titles and 3 Finals appearances by the end of this decade ('00-'09).

3 titles ('03, '05, '07)
3 Finals appearances ('03, '05, '07)

Head to head matchups go to the Lakers 4-1.

The Spurs appear to be on the tail end of their run. Injuries might slam that window completely shut within a year or two.

that sums it up perfectly

[Typical London Boy]

If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010.

:stirpot:

On that basis, 1990 would be considered part of the 80's. Does that sound right to you?

[samikeyp]

Rings or bust. Both true Lakers and Spurs fans know that's all its about.

Whoever has the most rings wins - just as it should be.

What if they finished tied?

[mytespurs]

What if they finished tied?

Then the issue is and should be "moot". :-)

As far as I'm concerned, both teams could clam that honor this decade.

[holcs50]

If the Lakers win it all this season they are team of the decade.

4 titles ('00, '01, '02, '09)
6 Finals appearances ('00, '01, '02, '04, '08, '09)

The Spurs will have 3 titles and 3 Finals appearances by the end of this decade ('00-'09).

3 titles ('03, '05, '07)
3 Finals appearances ('03, '05, '07)

Head to head matchups go to the Lakers 4-1.

The Spurs appear to be on the tail end of their run. Injuries might slam that window completely shut within a year or two.

Wrong. Lakers have 5 finals appearences and 2 wins this decade. A decade starts at year 1, meaning the 00-01 season and ends with the 09-00 season. You don't count the last season of last decade for this decade also.

Scenarios

1.I would say if the lakers get it done this year and next year they are the team of this decade.

2. If lakers win this year and another team (not spurs) win next year, then it's very debatable between spurs/lakers for team of decade...both have positives and negatives

3. If the lakers win this year and spurs next year-spurs team of decade

4. If the lakers and spurs don't win this year or the next-spurs are team of the decade

This is all premature because there is still the end to this season and all of next season and a lot can happen. So we'll see, but it really doesn't matter besides for some shit talking.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

This decade is 2000-2009

Spurs have 3 championships 3 finals

Lakers have 3 championships 6 finals

Even if count Spurs win in 1999 which does NOT count for this decade if Lakers win this title then

they have 4 champs just like Spurs and 2 more finals and beside 1999 championship does NOT count in this decade. Also Lakers won 3 in a row and Spurs never repeated.

Lakers = team of this decade for sure 100% if they win the finals

[u4lakers14]

the fact that spur fans have to rub lotion on each others bottoms over the issue is some good shit man.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

Wrong. Lakers have 5 finals appearences and 2 wins this decade. A decade starts at year 1, meaning the 00-01 season and ends with the 09-00 season. You don't count the last season of last decade for this decade also.

Scenarios

1.I would say if the lakers get it done this year and next year they are the team of this decade.

2. If lakers win this year and another team (not spurs) win next year, then it's very debatable between spurs/lakers for team of decade...both have positives and negatives

3. If the lakers win this year and spurs next year-spurs team of decade

4. If the lakers and spurs don't win this year or the next-spurs are team of the decade

This is all premature because there is still the end to this season and all of next season and a lot can happen. So we'll see, but it really doesn't matter besides for some shit talking.

WTF? Decade starts year 0 not year 1. 1999-2000 to 2008-09 is the decade for the basketball seasons. You are very wrong saying otherwise.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

It also depends when you start the decade. Is it the first season to be fully within the 00 decade (2000-01) or do you include a season that includes only part of the decade? (1999-00)?

There is no "Team of the Decade" award except in the minds of fans so I guess it can be tweaked anyway you want it to be.

FIBA gives an official team of decade award to the clubs from Euroleague and NBA.

1990s was Chicago Bulls and Olympiacos for example.

[rascal]

If you want to get technical, any decade starts with the '1' year and ends with the '0' year. 'This' decade will run from 2001 thru 2010. That gives the Lakers 2 titles 'this' decade to the Spurs 3. It also means they have 1 missed playoff and 2 first round outs to our 1 first round out.

:stirpot:

No way. The decade starts at 2000 to 2009. The lakers will claim more titles after their title this year.

But really it doesn't matter for anything this team of the decade stuff .

[arial]

Everyone knows the team of the decade are the Clippers!

[m33p0]

team of the what? is there a parade involved?

[samikeyp]

Everyone knows the team of the decade are the Clippers!

:lol :toast

[spurscenter]

The Team of the Decade makes the playoffs every year.

They do not have lottery teams.

Jordan, Bird, Magic, Duncan never did.

The Kobe-led Lakers failed to make the playoffs in ths decade. .

Case closed.

All the rest are apologies and excuses .

wow

So true.

[spurscenter]

BTW

Decades are

1980 - 1989 (The 80's)
1990 - 1999 (the 90's)
2000 - 2009 (the 00's)

[smeagol]

Lakers are just lucky their town has glamour and stars wanna play there. Otherwise, they would've never gotten Kobe, Shaq or Gasol.

Team of the decade my ass . . .

[exstatic]

On that basis, 1990 would be considered part of the 80's. Does that sound right to you?

There was no 'year 0'. It went from 1 BC to 1 AD just like that. That means that the first year of the first decade of what is now being called the "common era" was the year 1 AD and the end of that decade was the year 10 AD....and so on and so forth.

[exstatic]

BTW

Decades are

1980 - 1989 (The 80's)
1990 - 1999 (the 90's)
2000 - 2009 (the 00's)

Find me a year 0, and I'll agree with you.

[exstatic]

WTF? Decade starts year 0 not year 1. 1999-2000 to 2008-09 is the decade for the basketball seasons. You are very wrong saying otherwise.

Again, find me an actual year '0', and I'll agree with you.

[vander]

don't they have like 30 finals appearances in their history now? :wow
goes to show that it just isn't that hard to build a great basketball team if you're willing to spend the $ and take the risks.

[samikeyp]

This pretty much sums it up. Its funny to see these Spurs fans trying to change the meaning of what a decade is to determine the team of the decade...:lol

Also, it wasnt injuries that shut the door on the Spurs, it was the Lakers.

No, everyone knows the definition of a decade, the point of contention is when the decade in question started. Laker fan and Spurs fan are doing the same thing in order to make their case.

[exstatic]

This pretty much sums it up. Its funny to see these Spurs fans trying to change the meaning of what a decade is to determine the team of the decade...:lol

Also, it wasnt injuries that shut the door on the Spurs, it was the Lakers.

Not changing anything. Funny to see Laker fan desperately trying to re-define when a decade starts when it's painfully obvious when the first one, and thus every subsequent one, started: on the '1' year.

[samikeyp]

All this rancor over a non-existent title.

Have we all turned in to Mavs fans? :lol

[samikeyp]

Come on now. A decade is a span of 10 years, just as a century is a span of 100 years. This decade started in 00 and will end in 09. Its truly simple for those who dont pretend to act stupid.

The Lakers will win the team of the decade if they win this years title, but the Spurs have been much more consistent and that is something to hang your hat on if you ask me. At the end of the day, fans remember titles, not regualr season wins. Its almost like saying, who is the best team in the 2009 season? The Cavs can say they were since they won the most games, but they failed to win the title. Give me titles over regualar season wins any day.

So someone who may see things differently than you is stupid. Nice.

The Lakers will not win the team of the decade because there is no such title to compete for, and for the same reason, the Spurs will not win it either.

You are right though. The decade did start in 2000 but my question was, do you include a season that played partly in the previous decade or do you start with the first full season of the new decade.

[dbestpro]

I say its LA basketball against SA basketball. That means you have to throw the Clippers in with the Lakers. Final analysis SA BB > LA BB.

[samikeyp]

Numbers and math was here long before your Jesus son.

Im going to go with this. And leave it alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_decades

Why is it exstatic's Jesus? Why can't he be everyone's? :lol

[samikeyp]

According to your logic, 1999 was not the end of the millennium:wow

It wasn't, 2000 was. 2001 was the start of the new millennium.

http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

[samikeyp]

Because not everyone is dogmatic, son

Lighten up son. It was a joke, hence the :lol

[exstatic]

It wasn't, 2000 was. 2001 was the start of the new millennium.

http://www.timeanddate.com/counters/mil2000.html

That. Not surprised that Laker fan doesn't know that, though. :lol

[exstatic]

Numbers and math was here long before your Jesus son.

Im going to go with this. And leave it alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_decades

Wikipedia? You're really quoting Wikipedia to support an argument?
:lmao

[samikeyp]

That. Not surprised that Laker fan doesn't know that, though. :lol

I don't have a problem with Laker fans claiming this "title" for their team. There would be tons of Spurs fans doing the same thing if SA was in the finals this year. However, because Laker fans says it doesn't make it so and I do not have to agree. It's not a matter of being stupid or being a "real" fan or even being right or wrong. It's just having a different opinion and view which by definition is neither right nor wrong.

[exstatic]

I don't have a problem with Laker fans claiming this "title" for their team. There would be tons of Spurs fans doing the same thing if SA was in the finals this year. However, because Laker fans says it doesn't make it so and I do not have to agree. It's not a matter of being stupid or being a "real" fan or even being right or wrong. It's just having a different opinion and view which by definition is neither right nor wrong.

Laker Fan will stretch anything to fit their convenient definition. If by some chance they lose this Finals, but win next year, they'll still be trying to shoe horn the 2000 and 2010 titles into the same decade for bragging rights. :lol

[samikeyp]

No hard feeling taken.:toast

:toast

[Galileo]

I didn't write the following saw it posted by a Laker fan.


Actually Spurs don't have 4 championships this decade (their first one was in 1999). Only 3 championships this decade... tied with the Lakers.

But the Lakers made it to the finals 6 times, compared to only 3 times for the Spurs this decade.

Compared to the 4 major sport in America, they are the TEAM of the DECADE.

(Tiger Woods is the individual Athlete of the Decade).



Aren't the Spurs 4 for 4 when going to the Finals?

Aren't the Lakers the ref's darlings (2001 and 2002)?


What you think?

Tim Duncan > Tiger Woods

[cnyc3]

shouldnt decade start in 2001? meaning lakers would have 2

[Jacko]

I think most sports fans will acknowledge that 1999 is not part of the '00 decade. I have not seen that ANYWHERE in any professional sport.

Most would agree that '00-09 is the decade in question here.

[Ice009]

Head to head matchups go to the Lakers 4-1.

That head to heat match up is BS.

If we played the Lakers in '05, '06 and '07 then the Spurs would have won all those when we were clearly the better team.

'04 could have gone either way if you take out that Fisher BS we'd have likely won that one and taken the series lead.

'01 Derek Anderson had a seperated shoulder and was not really able to play anywhere near his best level so that was our second leading scorer injured.

Then you have '08 with Manu injured that made a big difference too. Basically the Lakers were able to play us most times when we weren't totally healthy. Too bad the Spurs couldn't have played the Lakers in their down years. The only legit year that you beat us at 100% was '02 and we had the lead in every game in the 4th quarter, but choked it up.

Laker fans think they dominated, but they didn't dominate shit. They got a bit of luck along the way.

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

Find me a year 0, and I'll agree with you.

WTF? Find you a zero? There is 3 zeros in year 2000. WTF is wrong with you?

[Kill_Bill_Pana]

shouldnt decade start in 2001? meaning lakers would have 2

No.

1980-1989 = 1980s
1990-1999 = 1990s
2000-2009 = 2000s
2010-2019 = 2010s
2020-2029 = 2020s

Is there some reason why this is hard for people to figure out?

[Ice009]

This pretty much sums it up. Its funny to see these Spurs fans trying to change the meaning of what a decade is to determine the team of the decade...:lol

Also, it wasnt injuries that shut the door on the Spurs, it was the Lakers.

If you need to say that to make yourself feel better please do. I seriously don't care what arrogant piece of shit Laker fans like you have to say anymore. You're all pretty much worthless and have no humility whatsoever.

I'll take this Spurs team any day over you Lakers teams. We did it the right way with hard work and true team work. Some seasons we weren't at 100% and that may have cost us a title or two, but I don't really give a shit anymore as I wouldn't trade places with any Laker fan. Enjoy your 15 choke jobs in the finals and feuds to come between your great teammates and if Kobe ever wanted to play for the Spurs I'd show him the door. I wouldn't want him on the Spurs even for $1.

[DeadlyDynasty]

If you need to say that to make yourself feel better please do. I seriously don't care what arrogant piece of shit Laker fans like you have to say anymore. You're all pretty much worthless and have no humility whatsoever.

I'll take this Spurs team any day over you Lakers teams. We did it the right way with hard work and true team work. Some seasons we weren't at 100% and that may have cost us a title or two, but I don't really give a shit anymore as I wouldn't trade places with any Laker fan. Enjoy your 15 choke jobs in the finals and feuds to come between your great teammates and if Kobe ever wanted to play for the Spurs I'd show him the door. I wouldn't want him on the Spurs even for $1.

yes you do, hence your response:hat
Without the Lakers the NBA would be boring

[Ice009]

yes you do, hence your response:hat
Without the Lakers the NBA would be boring

No I DO not give a shit anymore. Yesterday I did, now I don't. That's why I said it.

Maybe other Spurs fans can keep entertaining you guys? I was always a Bird fan over Magic and even though I don't like KG either it's great that Boston won last season and added to those Lakers finals choke jobs..

[spursnatic]

don't they have like 30 finals appearances in their history now? :wow
goes to show that it just isn't that hard to build a great basketball team if you're willing to spend the $ and take the risks.Yes, but I don't see how you can say wow?...They have been less than .500 when making the finals...That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me?...SPURS when making the finals 100%!!!.....Fuck the Lakers!!!!!..........

[DrHouse]

If all it took to build a great basketball team was money then why are the Knicks so consistently awful despite having the highest payroll in the league?

It takes a lot more than money. You need great ownership, GM's, coaches, etc.

90's decade (1990-1999)
2000's decade (2000-2009)
2010's decade (2010-2019)

It's not that hard people. Find me anywhere in professional sports where the above definition of a decade is not true.

[Ghazi]

Who gives a flyin mutha fuck is all I wanna know?

It's not enough that your franchises are LUCKY enough to win 3 championships in a 10 year span, you must have the team of the decade crown too? GMAFB greedy fucks. As a Mav fan, I'm just grateful for the championship in 2006. I don't care about anything else.

[spurscenter]

Whats makes it confusing , I think , is the way the NBA season crosses over 2 years since its fall through spring.

maybe.

But still, take away the refs BS calls in the 3 peat as well as the Gasol B.S. trade and Lakers would still be out of the playoffs.

Not making the playoffs this decade is pretty bad ..

I dunno

2004 lakers, that was pretty bad too.

[Ice009]

Who gives a flyin mutha fuck is all I wanna know?

It's not enough that your franchises are LUCKY enough to win 3 championships in a 10 year span, you must have the team of the decade crown too? GMAFB greedy fucks. As a Mav fan, I'm just grateful for the championship in 2006. I don't care about anything else.

I agree with you Ghazi. I don't give a shit about team of the decade. I'm quite happy with what the Spurs have been able to do.

I don't care about the Lakers and their 15 choke jobs. I mean if they got to the finals that many times they were good enough to win it, but choked 15 times ;).

[Ice009]

Whats makes it confusing , I think , is the way the NBA season crosses over 2 years since its fall through spring.

maybe.

But still, take away the refs BS calls in the 3 peat as well as the Gasol B.S. trade and Lakers would still be out of the playoffs.

Not making the playoffs this decade is pretty bad ..

I dunno

2004 lakers, that was pretty bad too.

Would the Lakers have even won the 2000 Championship if Tim wasn't out for the playoffs? I don't think they would have even won that one as D-Rob was dropping 40 on the Suns in round 1 with out TD. David was in great form and if Tim didn't hurt his knee you never know the current Lakers run may have never existed.

Like I said Lakers fans are so arrogant they will not admit to anything or be humble or appreciative about anything.

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't give a crap about nonsensical "Team of the Decade" gloss among fans. If the Spurs won 4 titles from 1999 through 2007 and the Lakers win 4 titles from 2000 through 2009, the real accomplishments are essentially the same (other than the Spurs having needed one less season to collect 4 titles). Why it should matter that one occured within the arbitrary confines of a specific decade and the other occurred over the course of 9 seasons that spanned two different decades is beyond me.

With that said, I got to thinking that there's a very significant divide in the NBA over the post-Jordan era and it has everything to do with the dominance of 2 teams in the West and the parity among the teams in the East. Since the Jordan era ended, only 3 franchises from the West have made a Finals appearance:

San Antonio -- 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007
Los Angeles -- 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2008, 2009
Dallas -- 2006

Meanwhile, 9 different franchises have qualified for the Finals from the East over that span:

New York -- 1999
Indiana -- 2000
Philadelphia -- 2001
New Jersey -- 2002, 2003
Detroit -- 2004, 2005
Miami -- 2006
Cleveland -- 2007
Boston -- 2008
Orlando -- 2009

Whatever "Team of the Decade" means -- and whoever cares about that stuff -- it's been very clear that the West has basically been monolithic and ruled by 2 behemoths for the last 11 seasons while the East has seen a great deal of turnover at the top.

[holcs50]

Whats makes it confusing , I think , is the way the NBA season crosses over 2 years since its fall through spring.

maybe.

But still, take away the refs BS calls in the 3 peat as well as the Gasol B.S. trade and Lakers would still be out of the playoffs.

Not making the playoffs this decade is pretty bad ..

I dunno

2004 lakers, that was pretty bad too.

EXactly! Please people stop putting up definitions of a decade like your smart and correcting stupid people, especially you kbp with your post history you can't possibly feel comfortable doing that. Can you? well maybe, it is YOU.

Like Spurscenter said the NBA season crosses into two years so fans can interpret which one season best fits their team. That's why I say for the NBA season it starts the 00-01 season and goes till the 09-10 season with the championships being given in the years ending 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,10-like a person normally counts. Lakers fans and KBP want to say it starts in the 99-00 and goes till the 98-99 season with rings being given out in 00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09...The reason I think its the way I say is the other ways so called first season of the decade begins in the last decade-99! You see that right? But this debate could go on forever because the NBA season covers TWO years.

Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. And yea who cares, but I guess I care enough to debate-most likely boredom and insomnia.

[Stump]

I don't much care. The way I see things, 1999-2007 was the Duncan-Shaq era. Right now we're in the middle of something new.

[rascal]

EXactly! Please people stop putting up definitions of a decade like your smart and correcting stupid people, especially you kbp with your post history you can't possibly feel comfortable doing that. Can you? well maybe, it is YOU.

Like Spurscenter said the NBA season crosses into two years so fans can interpret which one season best fits their team. That's why I say for the NBA season it starts the 00-01 season and goes till the 09-10 season with the championships being given in the years ending 01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,10-like a person normally counts. Lakers fans and KBP want to say it starts in the 99-00 and goes till the 98-99 season with rings being given out in 00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09...The reason I think its the way I say is the other ways so called first season of the decade begins in the last decade-99! You see that right? But this debate could go on forever because the NBA season covers TWO years.

Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that. And yea who cares, but I guess I care enough to debate-most likely boredom and insomnia.

Most of the nba season is in the year the championship is won. Only 8 weeks are played in the previous year. So the year 2000 will be the first year of the new decade, 2000-2009 is the decade.

[rascal]

Its shows the competance of the spurs front office that the lakers will claim the decade even with the Spurs getting the two lucky lottery pick franchise hall of fame centers in the draft.

Lakers front office > Spurs front office

[mytespurs]

memo to spurs fans: if laker fans want to claim the team of the decade, milinuem of all time, then let them have it.

Just be proud of what our team accomplished. We have nothing to be ashamed of. :toast

[SpurOutofTownFan]

I never had the feeling the Lakers would win again with Kobe after 2004 and those bad ref calls against the spurs. Since then, it has been pitiful again. Right until before the Gasol trade (the biggest rip-off of the decade), Kobe was saying he wanted out because he was surrounded with a bunch of losers (including Odom). He even considered moving to the Clippers.

After the stolen 2004 western semifinals and the Gasol trade, I just don't think the Lakers will win again for a long period of time and especially while Kobe is there. Call it a curse or whatever. It doesn't matter.

[Phenomanul]

Its shows the competance of the spurs front office that the lakers will claim the decade even with the Spurs getting the two lucky lottery pick franchise hall of fame centers in the draft.

Lakers front office > Spurs front office

Does "The Gasol Robbery" ring a bell???

The Lakers' current resurgence would be non-existent without that collutional move.

YOU are such an annoying poster... why don't you become a fan of another team and shower them with your endless pessimism...:rolleyes

[mytespurs]

I never had the feeling the Lakers would win again with Kobe after 2004 and those bad ref calls against the spurs. Since then, it has been pitiful again. Right until before the Gasol trade (the biggest rip-off of the decade), Kobe was saying he wanted out because he was surrounded with a bunch of losers (including Odom). He even considered moving to the Clippers.

After the stolen 2004 western semifinals and the Gasol trade, I just don't think the Lakers will win again for a long period of time and especially while Kobe is there. Call it a curse or whatever. It doesn't matter.

:wow


Uh, I don't know what team you've been watching but 2009 looks very much to be their year. Obtaining Gasol, ariza, bynum's continuing maturity, odom's consistency made them a better team.

I'm not a Lakers fan but I am not so biased not to see that when this team plays to their ability, they are one of the best if not the best team in the nba.

[Blackjack]

I don't really give a damn about the "Team of the Decade" argument, but lets be honest.

If you're talking about the last ten years, then yeah. The Spurs can be considered the team of the last decade. But if you're asking who is the team of the decade by usual standards? There's really no argument.

When you use the Team of the Decade moniker, it's usually for a team of the '70's, '80's, '90's, etc. So, while the Spurs can technically be called the "Team of the Decade", (as you can argue their dominance over the last ten years) if you're intellectually honest and not letting you're hatred for the rival blind you, The Lakers are the team of this decade.

The Lakers have now appeared in 6 out of 9 Finals since '00 and have 3 championships. The Lakers winning the championship this year would seal deal on the, "Team of the Decade."

Now, if the Lakers were to come up short this year, and the Spurs were to win their fourth next year?

Then the Spurs could steal that moniker.

But that's the only way I could honestly say that the Spurs are, the "Team of the Decade."

[rascal]

Does "The Gasol Robbery" ring a bell???

The Lakers' current resurgence would be non-existent without that collutional move.

YOU are such an annoying poster... why don't you become a fan of another team and shower them with your endless pessimism...:rolleyes

The Lakers front office pulled off the Gasol trade. Still waiting for the spurs front office to pull off a meaningful trade that lands them an impact player.

Lakers front office > Spurs front office

[IronMexican]

Lakers front office > Spurs front office

Best owner in the NBA.

[rascal]

I don't really give a damn about the "Team of the Decade" argument, but lets be honest.

If you're talking about the last ten years, then yeah. The Spurs can be considered the team of the last decade. But if you're asking who is the team of the decade by usual standards? There's really no argument.

When you use the Team of the Decade moniker, it's usually for a team of the '70's, '80's, '90's, etc. So, while the Spurs can technically be called the "Team of the Decade", (as you can argue their dominance over the last ten years) if you're intellectually honest and not letting you're hatred for the rival blind you, The Lakers are the team of this decade.

The Lakers have now appeared in 6 out of 9 Finals since '00 and have 3 championships. The Lakers winning the championship this year would seal deal on the, "Team of the Decade."

Now, if the Lakers were to come up short this year, and the Spurs were to win their fourth next year?

Then the Spurs could steal that moniker.

But that's the only way I could honestly say that the Spurs are, the "Team of the Decade."

Good post.

[ducks]

Its shows the competance of the spurs front office that the lakers will claim the decade even with the Spurs getting the two lucky lottery pick franchise hall of fame centers in the draft.

Lakers front office > Spurs front office
how long ago was it that kobe demanded out felt lied to by lakers front office
then kobe called jerry and jerry arranged the deal for gasol



jerry and kobe are tight

[ducks]

oh and it does help lakers tickets are the most expensive in the nba

[mexicanjunior]

I don't really give a damn about the "Team of the Decade" argument, but lets be honest.

If you're talking about the last ten years, then yeah. The Spurs can be considered the team of the last decade. But if you're asking who is the team of the decade by usual standards? There's really no argument.

When you use the Team of the Decade moniker, it's usually for a team of the '70's, '80's, '90's, etc. So, while the Spurs can technically be called the "Team of the Decade", (as you can argue their dominance over the last ten years) if you're intellectually honest and not letting you're hatred for the rival blind you, The Lakers are the team of this decade.

The Lakers have now appeared in 6 out of 9 Finals since '00 and have 3 championships. The Lakers winning the championship this year would seal deal on the, "Team of the Decade."

Now, if the Lakers were to come up short this year, and the Spurs were to win their fourth next year?

Then the Spurs could steal that moniker.

But that's the only way I could honestly say that the Spurs are, the "Team of the Decade."

Yep...this is pretty much the truth...

[mytespurs]

The Lakers front office pulled off the Gasol trade. Still waiting for the spurs front office to pull off a meaningful trade that lands them an impact player.

Lakers front office > Spurs front office

You could say the same of most front offices in the NBA.

The Spurs may have not pulled off a trade of major magnitude but all things considered, they haven't done too bad considering they were winners these past 8-9 years.

[rayray2k8]

Yes, but that is IF they Lakers win this years title.
But since house likes to act like a dick, I'll say that the spurs are undefeated
in the Finals, to where the lakers are 0-2 since their last title... Hmm I wonder
who actually has done better the last few years?

[Jace]

I hate the Lakers but they are the team of the decade, doesn't hurt they play in LA and have their history when it comes to attracting players/executives/advertisers and making money. Spurs are more impressive to me as they seem to have done nearly as much with a lot less to work with

[xellos88330]

In my eyes, championship trophies and records in the finals series are tie breakers. I am making my opinion based on playoff series played from '00-'01 season to the '08-'09 season. These are the results...

Playoff Series Played
FTL SA
'99-'00 4 1
'00-'01 4 3
'01-'02 4 2
'02-'03 2 4
'03-'04 4 2
'04-'05 0 4 (A doughnut for LA... HAHAHAHAHA!!!)
'05-'06 1 2
'06-'07 1 4
'07-'08 4 3
'08-'09 4 1

Totals 28 26

Pretty damn close if you ask me. On paper LA is the team of the decade. In the heart, everyone knows it took a rare and completely one sided trade (how it was allowed, I will never know) to bring LA back from playoff joke, to playoff contender. I am going to have to go with the Spurs as the Team of the Decade.

Another funny thing is that in order to make that many playoff appearances, the Lakers had to get to the finals 3 more times than the Spurs.

[rascal]

I hate the Lakers but they are the team of the decade, doesn't hurt they play in LA and have their history when it comes to attracting players/executives/advertisers and making money. Spurs are more impressive to me as they seem to have done nearly as much with a lot less to work with


Spurs had the lucky lottery ball bounces called Robinson and Duncan.

[SouthTexasRancher]

I didn't write the following saw it posted by a Laker fan.

Actually Spurs don't have 4 championships this decade (their first one was in 1999). Only 3 championships this decade... tied with the Lakers.

But the Lakers made it to the finals 6 times, compared to only 3 times for the Spurs this decade.

Compared to the 4 major sport in America, they are the TEAM of the DECADE.

(Tiger Woods is the individual Athlete of the Decade).



Aren't the Spurs 4 for 4 when going to the Finals?

Aren't the Lakers the ref's darlings (2001 and 2002)?


What you think?


Definition of 'decade':

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:


Any period of ten consecutive 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.

******

The Spurs just last week celebrated the 10 Year Anniversary of Sean Elliott's Memorial Day Miracle Shot that propelled us to a sweep of the Portland Trailblazers on our way to the 1999 NBA Championship.

Sports Illustrated, ESPN as well as coaches, GM's, owners and players of each of the Major League sports have said the Spurs are the Team of the Decade...PERIOD!!!

The main point is the Spurs won 4 Championships in less than a ten year period and NEVER lost once in a Finals. The Lakers have been there more but won ONLY 3 and LOST two. And one of those two losses came after they stacked the deck by adding Karl Malone and Gary Payton. That Laker team lost to the Detroit Pistons and the following year the Spurs beat the same Pistons team. If the Lakers beat the Orlando Magic then they will also have 4 wins in a ten year period BUT, they will still have two (2) NBA Finals Losses!!!

Yes, The San Antonio Spurs are the Team of the Decade for the 10 years from 1999 on, i.e., 1999, 2003, 2005, & 2007.

[rascal]

Give it up. Why are some spur fans still continuing with this lame argument . The lakers are the team of the decade for the 2000's. Four titles from 2000 to 2009.