PDA

View Full Version : *** on any championships won by the Celtics, Heat, and Lakers.



TE
02-05-2011, 03:37 PM
By no means is this thread for trolling purposes. Actual basketball discussion is highly suggested.

Don't know if this has ever been directly discussed, but anyhow....



If analysts are so quick to put an asterisk on the Spurs championship of 99, wouldn't it be even more so appropriate to put an even more warranted asterisk on any championship won from 2008 and on?

The competition in the NBA has been devalued because of player collusion. The Lakers back in the 2007-08 season acquired Pau Gasol for practically nothing, putting them instantly into contender status. The Celtics prior to the aforementioned 2007-08 season acquired Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett, while giving a set of scrubs to both teams with a few draft picks in the exchange. Both teams battled in the NBA finals with one coming out on top.

The next year (2008-09), the Lakers got to the NBA finals and had a laughably easy opponent with absolutely no championship experience (Magic). During that same year the Celtics were dealt a major blow with the injury to K.G., allowing the other superpower team to emerge.

The next year (2009-10), the Lakers and Celtics met again in the NBA finals, with the Lakeshow coming out on top.

Circa (2010-current), the Heat acquired superstar Lebron James and all-star Chris Bosh along with other decent players. IMO, the Heat and Celtics will battle out for the team that will represent the East in the finals. The Lakers and Spurs will battle out for the other spot in the Finals.

Does any of this sound fishy?

Three of the four teams I mentioned have benefited from collusion. Needful to say, any championships won from the Celtics, Heat, or Lakers should be in serious consideration for an asterisk.



Sad to see the competition in the NBA being devalued because of players wanting to win. Hell, I understand the winning aspect, but wouldn't it feel more enriching and ballsy to win with the team you have. Counter arguments will point out the acquisition of Tim Duncan via free agency, well is that it? :lol

Acquiring a star via free agency is vastly different from acquiring a star via forced trade transactions and/or player colluded infected free agency.



:lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt::lobt:

Sad to see the rest of the league trying not to win anything the right way nowadays.

BRHornet45
02-05-2011, 04:09 PM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.

Mel_13
02-05-2011, 04:13 PM
Sad to see the competition in the NBA being devalued because of players wanting to win.

Wow.

jjktkk
02-05-2011, 04:18 PM
:cry:cry:cry:cry

WildcardManu
02-05-2011, 04:19 PM
The Spurs have 3 legit titles.

xellos88330
02-05-2011, 04:24 PM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.

How many teams played the same amount of regular season games as the Spurs in '99? Are you saying that the Spurs for some reason didn't experience the same hardships as the other teams?

I never understood the whole asterisk argument to begin with. The playing field was level across the board. Why couldn't any other team be the last team standing being that everyone was playing under the same conditions due to the lockout? As far as the argument being that the Spurs won the title simply because they were the hottest team is ridiculous. The hottest team ALWAYS wins the championship. Why? Simple. The best team is normally the hottest one in a marathon season/playoffs.

TE
02-05-2011, 04:26 PM
Wow.

:lol:lol


Obviously you misread.

jjktkk
02-05-2011, 04:26 PM
How many teams played the same amount of regular season games as the Spurs in '99? Are you saying that the Spurs for some reason didn't experience the same hardships as the other teams?

I never understood the whole asterisk argument to begin with. The playing field was level across the board. Why couldn't any other team be the last team standing being that everyone was playing under the same conditions due to the lockout? As far as the argument being that the Spurs won the title simply because they were the hottest team is ridiculous. The hottest team ALWAYS wins the championship. Why? Simple. The best team is normally the hottest one in a marathon season/playoffs.

BR has alot of hate for S.A. Hes never forgiven Benson for almost relocating his Saints to S.A. and hates it that the bees can't take the next step.

TE
02-05-2011, 04:29 PM
Please, I could give two shits what BR says. Obviously he hates anything having to deal with San Antonio. Converse on the real topic here people.

silverblk mystix
02-05-2011, 04:32 PM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.

Every team played the exact same number of games. Every team played during the same exact few months. Every team had the exact same opportunity that the spurs had.


Only one team was left standing at the end of the season.

Bito Corleone
02-05-2011, 04:50 PM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.

On the bold quote...if nobody remembers it they why are so many people so quick to try and dismiss it.

On the * in general: When it comes to things like this the only thing I can say is that if your team (or anyone else's team arguing this point) had won it that year you wouldn't be saying this...and don't try to bullshit and say that you wouldn't.

A championship is a championship. Every team that year played the same amount of reg season games, and the playoffs were the same format as they had been before. The Spurs had no direct advantage, and the rest of the NBA had no direct disadvantage. End of Story.

TE
02-05-2011, 05:57 PM
Thanks alot BR, this thread went no where cause of you.

LnGrrrR
02-05-2011, 06:01 PM
By no means is this thread for trolling purposes.


Could've fooled me :lol

v2freak
02-05-2011, 06:07 PM
I think you have a legitimate reason for what you're saying, but let's not all turn into Phil Jacksons and start slapping astericks left and right. Like older basketball players have said like Jordan and Magic, they wouldn't have done the things happening today joining rivals instead of trying to beat them. The reality however is that if a team has the money and attractiveness to do that, it's perfectly legal.

In the end, regardless of whether history remembers 2008, 2009 and 2010 as having astericks or not, today's basketball fans are perfectly aware of the conditions under which the championships were won.

TE
02-05-2011, 08:04 PM
It's legal in the sense that there is no crime for it. But it tarnishes the enrichment of winning. And basketball fans aren't aware of it because they're to mopped up in how brilliantly Stern is running the league.

Ace
02-05-2011, 08:56 PM
Spurs won the right way, with class. :cry :cry :cry

Venti Quattro
02-05-2011, 09:01 PM
Spurs won the right way, with class. :cry :cry :cry

Tanking for a #1 draft pick = classy move :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry

DMC
02-05-2011, 09:05 PM
The asterisk belongs on the season, not on the championship, and even then only on stats that show per season averages.

Regardless, who gives a fuck if some overrated fucking hippie in LA got butthurt and made a stupid remark? It's not the first time. I am still wondering when Riley is going to take over the team in Miami. Hippie said so. It must be so.

Imagine it's not a sports franchise. Imagine instead it's a fast food franchise. Now one franchise spends tons of money, pays huge taxes but get all this nice shit to run their business with. They stomp the shit out of other franchises when the comparisons are made, and they win all the awards. How is their profit/loss margin though?

Fans don't care about that though, they want the hardware. It's a business, and the Spurs have been the most successful franchise in professional sports for the past 10 or so years. That's not just in rings, but in many things you and I never get to see on paper.

DMC
02-05-2011, 09:13 PM
Tanking for a #1 draft pick = classy move :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry
Magic Johnson/James Worthy

:lmao

TE
02-06-2011, 02:46 AM
Magic Johnson/James Worthy

:lmao

:hat

Man In Black
02-06-2011, 04:35 AM
Magic Johnson/James Worthy

:lmao
Trades actually. Earvin because of Gail Goodrich. Worthy because of Don Ford. Loser GM's not understanding the value of an unconditional draft pick.

To tank means, get the worst record. Boston had 3 chances to get the #1 pick. They had the worst record that year. San Antonio had the 3rd best chance to get #1. LUCK played it's part.

The_Worlds_finest
02-06-2011, 07:18 AM
Regular season doesnt matter; ask any laker fan


BRHornets aka huge cock sucker. your team is total shit and is owned by the NBA. I cant wait for the two following actions; Chris paul to give up on the shitty big easy and move somewhere else; the NBA hornets to move to Seattle.

Venti Quattro
02-06-2011, 08:28 AM
Magic Johnson/James Worthy

:lmao


:hat

LOL revisionist historians. sons come on the lakers got worthy after they won the 82 championship. Is that tanking? :lmao

They got Magic after a fairly okay playoff season. But they never did TAAANK :lmao

YOU TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANKED :lmao :lmao :lmao

Kindergarten Cop
02-06-2011, 10:40 AM
Regular season doesnt matter; ask any laker fan

This was always my contention as well. In a sport where more than half of the teams make the Playoffs and so many argue that the regular season doesn't matter any way, how is this season much different? As others have argued, the Spurs had absolutely no advantage to the other teams and the field was even. The Playoff format was exactly the same as the year before/after and the Spurs had to win the same number of games to hoist the trophy.

In the end:

http://files.sharenator.com/Haters_are_going_to_hate_Pokemon_the_later_years-s500x375-104085-535.jpg

Leetonidas
02-06-2011, 11:15 AM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.

Son I guarantee if the Hornets back in Charlotte won a title in 1999, you would be running around proclaiming 1 ring faggot.

djohn2oo8
02-06-2011, 11:19 AM
Son I guarantee if the Hornets back in Charlotte won a title in 1999, you would be running around proclaiming 1 ring faggot.

:lol

JamStone
02-06-2011, 12:08 PM
An asterisk does absolutely nothing except to those who choose to allow it to let them feel butthurt. It doesn't take away the championship. So who cares? It's like when Spurs fans try to get Laker fans upset by saying the Celtics would have won if Perkins didn't get injured. So what? Perkins did get injured. The NBA doesn't take the trophy back and give it to the Celtics for last season. And they don't take away the 1999 title from the Spurs.

Moreover, the 1999 championship may have been legitimately an asterisk if not for 2003. If the Spurs never won another title, then I think it would be more of a sore nerve for Spurs fan. But the core of the 1999 title team won again. And Duncan won two more times after that. The other championships, especially 2003, ultimately legitimized the 1999 title.

But back to what I said first, even if the other titles didn't legitimize 1999, who cares? The Spurs still won it. And no one can take it away.

ohmwrecker
02-06-2011, 12:14 PM
Jam . . . goods . . . /thread.

Pelicans78
02-06-2011, 12:57 PM
LOL Spur fans for getting trolled by BR. If BR's remark didn't bother them or think it was possibly true, they wouldn't respond. LOL World's Finest.

The_Worlds_finest
02-06-2011, 01:53 PM
U think some pussy who uses the term sons, after every post bothers me? The hornets claim to fame is losing in a game seven to the spurs (oh and I think a mighty divison title). A title on a shorten season is better then no title and top it off most likely never going to title period. Face it the best that can ever happen for ur franchise is to move, at least with a move to seattle they can claim a title by default.

Pelicans78
02-06-2011, 02:10 PM
U think some pussy who uses the term sons, after every post bothers me? The hornets claim to fame is losing in a game seven to the spurs (oh and I think a mighty divison title). A title on a shorten season is better then no title and top it off most likely never going to title period. Face it the best that can ever happen for ur franchise is to move, at least with a move to seattle they can claim a title by default.

:lol

Trolled again mister homerism. Stop fooling yourself. I own you and if you had a clue Seattle ain't getting a team until they get a new arena. Dipshit :lol

Harry Callahan
02-06-2011, 02:21 PM
Tanking for a #1 draft pick = classy move :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry :cry

Dumbass Laker fans keep harping on SA supposedly tanking the season to get Duncan when Robinson was legitimately injured with a broken foot and knee problems. 2nd best player Sean Elliott was out with knee problems as well. There was no guarantee of Duncan anyway.

Tanking could also be a more legit consideration with dumping contracts and players to get a big salary slot in 1996 to sign Shaquille O'Neal without providing any compensation to Orlando

The Lakers have never had to rebuild in a legitimate way in 40 years. They could always get a HOF player on the cheap.

Cram it Laker"fan". This subject is old and tired.

Harry Callahan
02-06-2011, 02:26 PM
An asterisk does absolutely nothing except to those who choose to allow it to let them feel butthurt. It doesn't take away the championship. So who cares? It's like when Spurs fans try to get Laker fans upset by saying the Celtics would have won if Perkins didn't get injured. So what? Perkins did get injured. The NBA doesn't take the trophy back and give it to the Celtics for last season. And they don't take away the 1999 title from the Spurs.

Moreover, the 1999 championship may have been legitimately an asterisk if not for 2003. If the Spurs never won another title, then I think it would be more of a sore nerve for Spurs fan. But the core of the 1999 title team won again. And Duncan won two more times after that. The other championships, especially 2003, ultimately legitimized the 1999 title.

But back to what I said first, even if the other titles didn't legitimize 1999, who cares? The Spurs still won it. And no one can take it away.

When a team goes 15-2 on a playoff run after winning 39 of 50, sweeping the Lakers (with Shaq and Kobe) and Portland (a stout team too) there is no fluke about it. If a team cannot get its stuff together after 50 or 60 games, then that's their problem.

ALVAREZ6
02-06-2011, 02:58 PM
When a team goes 15-2 on a playoff run after winning 39 of 50, sweeping the Lakers (with Shaq and Kobe) and Portland (a stout team too) there is no fluke about it. If a team cannot get its stuff together after 50 or 60 games, then that's their problem.

/thread

DMC
02-06-2011, 03:12 PM
LOL Spur fans for getting trolled by BR. If BR's remark didn't bother them or think it was possibly true, they wouldn't respond. LOL World's Finest.
I understand you feast on cock. If you respond, there must be some truth to it.

DMC
02-06-2011, 03:13 PM
When a team goes 15-2 on a playoff run after winning 39 of 50, sweeping the Lakers (with Shaq and Kobe) and Portland (a stout team too) there is no fluke about it. If a team cannot get its stuff together after 50 or 60 games, then that's their problem.
But... but... but...

The Flakers were still in regular season mode! That's not fair!

jjktkk
02-06-2011, 03:15 PM
:lol

Trolled again mister homerism. Stop fooling yourself. I own you and if you had a clue Seattle ain't getting a team until they get a new arena. Dipshit :lol

A Spur fan a homer on ST. The horror of it all. :lol.

Seventyniner
02-06-2011, 05:13 PM
Wait...by everything I've read on this board the regular season doesn't matter.

The Spurs went through a full playoff slate in 1999.

Therefore, that season was no different than any other. Right?

TE
02-06-2011, 05:17 PM
Wait...by everything I've read on this board the regular season doesn't matter.

The Spurs went through a full playoff slate in 1999.

Therefore, that season was no different than any other. Right?

It wasn't different. Just because it was 20 games shorter than other seasons didn't cause any of the NBA competition to be devalued. In fact, it worked to the advantage of teams because it allowed for fewer injuries to occur if the season would be at regular length.


BR is a retarded poster who anyone can get a laugh out of. :lmao

TE
02-09-2011, 05:59 PM
Can't believe more people haven't dove into this discussion. I guess its a sign that collusion is becoming a widely accepted phenomenon. If the Melo for Bynum trade goes down, I rest my case and wait for any of you all to support it.

LnGrrrR
02-09-2011, 06:18 PM
Can't believe more people haven't dove into this discussion. I guess its a sign that collusion is becoming a widely accepted phenomenon. If the Melo for Bynum trade goes down, I rest my case and wait for any of you all to support it.

:lol It's probably because it's a stupid thread.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:24 PM
Can't believe more people haven't dove into this discussion. I guess its a sign that collusion is becoming a widely accepted phenomenon. If the Melo for Bynum trade goes down, I rest my case and wait for any of you all to support it.

Why? Where does collusion come from in with a Melo for Bynum trade? Where's the illegality? The deception? You should grab yourself a dictionary.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:26 PM
:lol It's probably because it's a stupid thread.

Yeah, I'd expect a response like this from a fan who follows one of the teams who blatantly colluded.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Dumbass Laker fans keep harping on SA supposedly tanking the season to get Duncan when Robinson was legitimately injured with a broken foot and knee problems. 2nd best player Sean Elliott was out with knee problems as well. There was no guarantee of Duncan anyway.


DRob was cleared to play and left out. Nice try. It was a calculated and IMO the right and smart move. Of course there was no guarantee to get Duncan but the odds sure improve. You win 3 more games your odds would have gone down roughly 20%. Again, nice try.

It was a tank job. Everyone knows it and it paid off big time. Be happy! :toast

TE
02-09-2011, 06:28 PM
Why? Where does collusion come from in with a Melo for Bynum trade? Where's the illegality? The deception? You should grab yourself a dictionary.

Check yourself. Collusion doesn't equate to illegality, but to inequality and fairness. I never implied for it to be illegal or deceptive, you should put that thesaurus down.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:30 PM
Check yourself. Collusion doesn't equate to illegality, but to inequality and fairness. I never implied for it to be illegal or deceptive, you should put that thesaurus down.

wrong again!

col·lu·sion   /kəˈluʒən/ Show Spelled
[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law . a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:30 PM
DRob was cleared to play and left out. Nice try. It was a calculated and IMO the right and smart move. Of course there was no guarantee to get Duncan but the odds sure improve. You win 3 more games your odds would have gone down roughly 20%. Again, nice try.

It was a tank job. Everyone knows it and it paid off big time. Be happy! :toast

There was no tank job. The team that year was plagued by injuries and a woeful roster outside of D Rob. It's not like the Spurs of that year could've competed with the shit they had.

Anyone who attempts to believe the Spurs tanked that year is retarded.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:36 PM
wrong again!

col·lu·sion   /kəˈluʒən/ Show Spelled
[kuh-loo-zhuhn] Show IPA

–noun
1. a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy: Some of his employees were acting in collusion to rob him.
2. Law . a secret understanding between two or more persons to gain something illegally, to defraud another of his or her rights, or to appear as adversaries though in agreement: collusion of husband and wife to obtain a divorce.

The term collusion, as it's surfaced this year, does not follow the definition given in this online dictionary. Words have relative meaning. Collusion in the NBA implies star players joining a team--completely ignoring the concept of fair play. For a fan of a franchise like yours, I am not surprised you argue against me. Deep down inside you know your team is bought out. The Lakers are team full of bitches who have signed on to ride the ship to a championship. How much for pussified can an organization be?

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:36 PM
There was no tank job. The team that year was plagued by injuries and a woeful roster outside of D Rob. It's not like the Spurs of that year could've competed with the shit they had.

Anyone who attempts to believe the Spurs tanked that year is retarded.

Say's the guy who doesnt even know the definition of collusion yet uses it in an argument.

The Spurs decided to shut Drob down when he was cleared to play. They gave up on the season and increased theirs odds in the lotto bg time. It was a great and smart move by the Spurs brass. If you don't wish to call it a tank job.. ok. Us retards know better! :toast

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:41 PM
The term collusion, as it's surfaced this year, does not follow the definition given in this online dictionary. Words have relative meaning. Collusion in the NBA implies star players joining a team--completely ignoring the concept of fair play. For a fan of a franchise like yours, I am not surprised you argue against me. Deep down inside you know your team is bought out. The Lakers are team full of bitches who have signed on to ride the ship to a championship. How much for pussified can an organization be?

Awwwwww is someone getting upset? Now that you cant argue the points you need to go into the name calling and team smack! Good for you.

Regardless, you are wrong. As it surfaces this year with the Miami fiasco is no different. The collusion was the fact that the 3 conspired years ago in secret and illegally agreed to join up this year and that Miami "possibly" was in on it all along. The collusion wasnt the result that had a stacked or "fair play" team, it was the process. The secrecy. The illegality.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:43 PM
Holy shit, this cobbler guy is funnier than cubby.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:45 PM
What's your take on how the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol?

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:46 PM
Holy shit, this cobbler guy is funnier than cubby.

awwwwww.... I see you have run out of argument. Funny how that happens when facts are tossed in the salad. And now... the personal attacks.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:48 PM
awwwwww.... I see you have run out of argument. Funny how that happens when facts are tossed in the salad. And now... the personal attacks.

:lmao

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:50 PM
What's your take on how the Lakers acquired Pau Gasol?

My opinion has been noted on the board a long time. Trade had equal value. Worked out great for both teams. I have yet to see anything illegal or secret be shown. Alls good that ends good.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:50 PM
:lmao

BRILLIANT reply!!!! :toast

cobbler
02-09-2011, 06:53 PM
soooooo back to the original argument that you have sidestepped. Please tell me how a Bynum for Melo trade is collusion. Please? I just gotta hear this.

TE
02-09-2011, 06:56 PM
My opinion has been noted on the board a long time. Trade had equal value. Worked out great for both teams. I have yet to see anything illegal or secret be shown. Alls good that ends good.

Really? :rollin

The way in which Pau Gasol was acquired was not illegal, or secret. HOWEVER, if a basketball committee oversaw all trade transactions, then that trade would've stalled because it was unfair. Pau Gasol can't be compared to any of the scrubs not named Marc Gasol who were involved in the transaction. For god's sake, the Lakers traded KWAME BROWN!!!!

LnGrrrR
02-09-2011, 06:59 PM
Yeah, I'd expect a response like this from a fan who follows one of the teams who blatantly colluded.

:rolleyes

cobbler
02-09-2011, 07:02 PM
Really? :rollin

The way in which Pau Gasol was acquired was not illegal, or secret. HOWEVER, if a basketball committee oversaw all trade transactions, then that trade would've stalled because it was unfair. Pau Gasol can't be compared to any of the scrubs not named Marc Gasol who were involved in the transaction. For god's sake, the Lakers traded KWAME BROWN!!!!

Please tell me how it was illegal. All trades to some degree are secret. If you are impling that nobody knew Pau was available like so many do then again you are not looking at facts. He was long known to be available.

Of course Pau cant be compared to the others in the deal. That's why it was a one player for multiple players deal. As for Kwame... do yourself a big favor and research the value of expiring contracts in the NBA today.

Again, it worked out great for both teams involved. That the rest of the league doesnt like it is irrelevant.

TE
02-09-2011, 07:02 PM
soooooo back to the original argument that you have sidestepped. Please tell me how a Bynum for Melo trade is collusion. Please? I just gotta hear this.

Melo > Bynum.
Lakers just seem to grow desperate for talent even with the record they hold (which is not that bad). The NBA becomes less competitive. It's unfair, you don't see a struggling team like the Timberwolves doing that type of thing, because well they can't. As much as I hate to say this, LA is a team that gets everything it wants, which is unfair, and illegal if their was a rule against it.

LnGrrrR
02-09-2011, 07:07 PM
Shitty trade =/= secretive move made by Stern to reignite Lakers/C's rivalry

LnGrrrR
02-09-2011, 07:08 PM
As much as I hate to say this, LA is a team that gets everything it wants, which is unfair, and illegal if their was a rule against it.

Why should it be illegal?

Good franchises attract good players. It doesn't just happen in the NBA, it happens in all sports.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 07:10 PM
Melo > Bynum.
Lakers just seem to grow desperate for talent even with the record they hold (which is not that bad). The NBA becomes less competitive. It's unfair, you don't see a struggling team like the Timberwolves doing that type of thing, because well they can't. As much as I hate to say this, LA is a team that gets everything it wants, which is unfair, and illegal if their was a rule against it.

Melo > Bynum in what context? I personally dont want the trade. I think Bynum is actually better than Melo for the Lakers system and players as its constituted today.

LA does have many advantages. It's friggen LA! Hollywood! The spotlights! People like to play and live here. There are advantages for "stars" that they just dont get in small markets. It's also why we Laker fans pay the highest ticket prices. Sorry... but that's just life. The Spurs most certainly can try to move locals if they feel the need to do so.

jjktkk
02-09-2011, 07:46 PM
The trade was defintiely suspicious when the Grizzlies GM was Jerry West. But its history. I'm over it.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 07:50 PM
The trade was defintiely suspicious when the Grizzlies GM was Jerry West. But its history. I'm over it.

The fact that West left the positon the prior year notwithstanding...

Their GM was Chris Wallace

jjktkk
02-09-2011, 07:53 PM
The fact that West left the positon the prior year notwithstanding...

Their GM was Chris Wallace

But West was a consultant.

cobbler
02-09-2011, 08:00 PM
But West was a consultant.

Not the GM as you stated. West has gone on record as saying he talked to Mitch and told him... Gasol can be had and you might want to look into it. Thats it! He was on the market for over a year with no movement. The Lakers inquired and history is history. Funny how nobody other than Chicago made an effort to obtain him and yet when the Lakers get him all hell breaks lose. One min nobody wants him... the next he's the best big man and Kobe is riding his coattails.

DMC
02-10-2011, 12:18 AM
My opinion has been noted on the board a long time. Trade had equal value. Worked out great for both teams. I have yet to see anything illegal or secret be shown. Alls good that ends good.
Oh yeah, the Grizz have been a powerhouse since.

Spursfan092120
02-10-2011, 12:18 AM
1999 deserves an asterisk beside it because it wasn't a legit NBA season. The season was nearly cut in half and most teams were still dealing with injuries and developing and dealing with issues they wouldn't have been dealing with if it was a full season. The Spurs just so happen to be the hottest team at htat particular time. It would be just like MLB giving the Montreal Expos the World Series in 94 just because they were the hottest team at the time. Now of course the 99 title is recognized, but no one outside of San Antonio takes it serious or even remembers that season. The Spurs have 3 legit titles to be proud of however so don't get all butthurt about the truth of the 99 season.
Spurs played the same amount of games as any other team. Isn't it ALWAYS who's the hottest team at that time? Don't you deal with more injuries in a longer season? None of your arguments make any sense. Injuries aren't dealt with in a longer season? Players aren't signed or brought in mid-season that need to be developed? Every team played that season..the Spurs were by FAR the most dominant team that year, and in the playoffs. If you don't like San Antonio, that's fine. But to say that the title doesn't count because the season was shorter, it just makes you sound like an idiot. It's not like the Spurs played less games than anyone else, so they were healthier. Come on man..you're better than that.

TampaDude
02-10-2011, 12:57 AM
An asterisk does absolutely nothing except to those who choose to allow it to let them feel butthurt. It doesn't take away the championship. So who cares? It's like when Spurs fans try to get Laker fans upset by saying the Celtics would have won if Perkins didn't get injured. So what? Perkins did get injured. The NBA doesn't take the trophy back and give it to the Celtics for last season. And they don't take away the 1999 title from the Spurs.

Moreover, the 1999 championship may have been legitimately an asterisk if not for 2003. If the Spurs never won another title, then I think it would be more of a sore nerve for Spurs fan. But the core of the 1999 title team won again. And Duncan won two more times after that. The other championships, especially 2003, ultimately legitimized the 1999 title.

But back to what I said first, even if the other titles didn't legitimize 1999, who cares? The Spurs still won it. And no one can take it away.

^ truth :toast

Spursfanfromafar
02-10-2011, 06:27 AM
Methinks the Celtics' Allen and KG heist is a different story from the Lakers' daylight robbery of Memphis' Gasol. In the Celtics' case, Ray Allen was a unrestricted FA pick up while KG was going nowhere in Minnesota and was eagerly sought. Minny also got a decent deal with virtually every prospect and decent player from Boston traded to them.

The Gasol trade was a major laugher on the other hand. Marc Gasol did turn out to be a good player later and he can be tagged to be nearly as good as Jefferson overall (defense+offense now). But Pau's trade was clearly a combination of an underhand deal and a stupid Memphis owner.

All credit to Pau though for being able to fit in the triangle system so effectively without a hitch. And of course to Garnett for changing the styles of play of Allen and Pierce making them effectively defenders, buying into the team concept and so on.

It is stupid to blame all this to a conspiracy.