Printable View
"Pop was the GM when I was in San Antonio, and we had more dinners and more talks about basketball than anybody I can remember," Rivers said. "I went out with him, [current Spurs GM] R.C. Buford and [former Spurs assistant] Hank Egan. I just kind of listened to what they said and it was great."
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...#ixzz0a4qSSjLT
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription
Spurs...Franchise of the Decade
......of all major sports, including the Yankees, Red Wings, and Patriots.
Then what is the Clippers' excuse? Not every team that lands that lucky number one draft pick wins the whole shabang. Who was the last number one draft pick to win the title? Tim Duncan. Since then the Clippers, Bulls, Nets, Wizards, Rockets, Cavs, Magic Bucks, Raptors, Blazers, Bulls, and Clippers had their shot. That is 11 years. In fact I believe, and I could be wrong, but the last two number one draft picks to win a ring with the team that drafted them were Tim and David ('87). Sure David got Tim but that doesn't change the fact that david got a ring with his original team.Quote:
Originally Posted by TJastal
So yes we had that lucky bounce but 19 out of the last 21 years so did other teams.
:rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by EmptyMan
Loved it?Quote:
Originally Posted by elbamba
Did they love getting beat down 4 out of 5 times in the playoffs by the mighty Lakers when the teams did meet?
Stein is a moron and you guys are pathetic to be happy for his flawed analysis. If I want to know where to get a menorah or some lox, I ask Stein.
For basketball analysis? Come to lakersground.net and read any of my thousands of brilliant posts. :toast
You didn't get to play us in 2005-2007 where you would have lost everyone of those years. Take away the gift Gasol trade and we beat you in 2008 too.Quote:
Originally Posted by LakerLanny
Plus those other series were not total domination either. 2004, well lets just say that was real lucky even more lucky than the lottery balls we got, and then 2002 we had the lead in the 4th quarter of almost every game and choked it away. More to do with the Spurs choking that the Lakers actually dominating. 2001 I will take on the chin.
Go enjoy yourself cause I certainly am.
Nothing to see here, just another bitter Laker fan who only had to resurface right after the Gasol "let's-make-the-Lakers-better" trade. Right after you lost in 03 against us, your decline has started.Quote:
Originally Posted by LakerLanny
The funniest part is a comment posted on the article page by a Suns fan :lmao
Quote:
The single best team of the decade was the 2004-2005 Phoenix Suns. (Hold your disbelief, your anger, your fury, and your cynicism, and just keep reading).
It was the ONLY Suns team to feature all 4 of their future all-stars (Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson). It was Nash's first year back with Phoenix, and it was his first MVP year. They won an NBA-best 62 games that year. They re-introduced the fun, fast-break offensive style that had been lost since the old Laker teams of the 80's. No one was going to beat them, until Joe Johnson suffered one of the ugliest head injuries I've ever seen against the Dallas Mavericks, which ultimately ended his career with Phoenix (Robert Sarver, i still hate you). We never got to see that team again.
What made that team so much better than any Suns team to date? It was Amare Stoudemire's last year before microfracture surgery. He was going to be a complete monster, better than Karl Malone, better than anyone at the PF position, especially at the pick-and-roll. He's put up decent stats since the injury, but trust me, he wasn't, isn't, and never will be close to the same as he was that year as far as freakish athleticsm goes.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/2009...slakers608.jpg
Which team stood out more in the 2000s: Kobe and the Lakers or Duncan and the Spurs?
Andrew D. Bernstein/NBAE via Getty Images
Spurs, Lakers can each stake claim as decade's best team
Posted Dec 15 2009 12:22PM
The 1970s were a weird decade for the NBA. Elite talent like Julius Erving, George "Iceman" Gervin, Rick Barry, Artis Gilmore, David Thompson, George McGinnis, Moses Malone and others spent time in the ABA, the NBA's rogue, rival league. The last half of the decade was forgettable as the league battled an image and drug problem and iconic greats like Kareem Abdul-Jabaar, Dr. J and "Pistol" Pete Maravich wasted virtuoso years on teams that ranged from middling to poor.
The league rolled into the 1980s without one player or team that truly defined the previous decade. The '70s are the only decade thus far that didn't feature a clear cut Team Of The Decade. The three-peat Minneapolis Lakers defined the '50s; Boston ruled the '60s; the L.A. Lakers pulled away from the Celtics and emerged as the team of the '80s and Chicago dominated the '90s. But the '70s? Who knows. New York began the decade with a title, lost in the Finals in 1972 and won it again in 1973, but tanked the rest of the decade. Boston won it all in 1974 and '76, but also missed the playoffs four times. Including Golden State in 1975, five different teams (Celtics, Blazers, Bullets, Sonics) won the title to close the decade.
Why spend two paragraphs yapping about the '70s? We're a couple weeks away from closing out the first decade of this millennium and have the same issue at hand. Who's the team of this decade? The Lakers or Spurs -- the only teams in the discussion. The reason for this debate, however, is significantly different. It's not that neither team submitted a fitting resume, it's that both organizations are each deserving. The Spurs were more consistent.. But the Lakers were more dynamic and transcendent. It's a tough one, so I had to get on my Dr. Jack/Bill Simmons/Nick Bakay game and break it all down. Seven categories, worth a cumulative, completely subjective 60 points.
http://i.cdn.turner.com/nba/nba/2009...nner_Floor.jpg
• HEAD-TO-HEAD: Season-by-season, the Lakers-Spurs series went like this: 2001 - Lakers 4-0; 2002 - Lakers 4-1; 2003 - Spurs 4-2; 2004 - Lakers 4-2; 2008 - Lakers 4-1.
Lakers: 9. Spurs: 1.
• MARQUEE PLAYERS: The three-peat Lakers sported two of the three best players of the decade in Kobe and Shaq. In fact, both are arguably among the ten greatest ever. If it were Tim Duncan versus just one of those guys, there's a debate. He can't, however, compete with both -- especially when considering that not only are Kobe and Shaq all-time greats, they were/are mega stars who sold tickets, magazines and hovered around one million All-Star votes each season.
Lakers: 10. Spurs: 8
• COACH: Greg Popovich is my dude. I love his sarcasm. Love the way he interacts with his players -- more like an uncle than a father. I love the way he clowns Craig Sager during in-game interviews (he once took Sage's pocket square and used it to wipe sweat off his brow). I love how his teams always maximize their talent. He's just an all around cool customer. The Spurs' three championships and constant contender status is as much, maybe even more, of a testament to his stewardship than Duncan's excellence.
On the other hand, I think the Zen Master doesn't get enough credit. Yeah, he's always been blessed with MJs and Pippens and Kobes and Shaqs of the world, but if you look at the past ten seasons, he's been more resourceful and enterprising. He led the Lakers to three titles in a row. The 1999-2000 team featured a young Kobe not yet among the league's top five players. There was some Shaq-Kobe bickering to begin the 2000-01 season. By the 2001-02 season, a good portion of the supporting cast was either aging or just not very good. Despite the colossal distraction of Kobe's rape case, the 2003-04 squad was a Karl Malone injury away from a fourth championship. Meanwhile, Jackson guided two tremendously untalented and inexperienced squads to the 2006 and 2007 playoffs -- two seasons that, in retrospect, featured some of his best coaching. Even if Gasol fell in Jackson's lap via a 2008 trade, the fact that the Lakers reached back-to-back Finals (winning the whole thing last season, despite injuries and a young, shaky bench) is remarkable in many ways. Is it enough to give Phil a slight edge? Yes. Plus, Phil won four rings, Pop has three. But not so fast. Phil left L.A. in a huff for a season and wrote a damning book ("The Last Season: A Team In Search Of Its Soul") while he was out. Pop hasn't gone anywhere since taking over the Spurs in 1996.
Lakers: 9. Spurs: 9.
• AMBASSADORSHIP: The Celtics and Lakers of the '80s and the Bulls of the '90s were great ambassadors on almost every level. They were star-studded, exciting to watch and mostly stayed away from controversy. As the two best teams of the decade, L.A. and San Antonio didn't always get it right in this area. L.A. was a constant soap opera. Shaq vs. Kobe. Kobe vs. Shaq. Kobe vs. Phil. Shaq vs. Jerry Buss. Eagle, Colo. The summer of 2007. All of these things hurt the league. During the first half of the decade, when the NBA was dealing with image issues and the post-MJ blues, the Kobe-Shaq championship teams had the potential to make everything right if not for those "Mean Girls" antics. Instead, the NBA's marquee team was a flash point for criticism. The closest San Antonio came to a controversy was when they courted Jason Kidd as a free agent in the summer of 2003, right after having won the '03 title with a young (and now ticked off) Tony Parker. Pop squashed that quickly and nothing before or after sniffs of controversy. Although they had a squad of model-citizens, the Spurs were wooden and boring.
Lakers: -6. Spurs: -2.
• FASCINATION FACTOR: The truth about the controversy that seemed to follow the Lakers all decade is that it was bittersweet. Yeah, it broke up a dynasty, but it also stoked fan interest. There was never an NBA season when L.A. was not a compelling story. Even in the 2004-'05 season when Kobe played in only 66 games, coach Rudy Tomjanovich resigned and the Lakers missed the playoffs, L.A. was still a story -- a former dynasty, toppled by jealousy and in-fighting, now struggling with a somewhat fallen star. The next season, while the Spurs (as always) were contending for a championship, I'd bet that Kobe's scoring rampage (including the famous 81-point masterpiece) and the Lakers were more compelling to most fans than the Spurs. The 2003-'04 season -- with the four Hall of Famers and Kobe's trial -- was a circus, but we were all watching. Meanwhile, San Antonio went 57-25 and captured few imaginations. The Grizzlies barely got 12,000 folks in the stands when the Spurs came to town this past January. They sold out for the Lakers. The Lakers sellout everywhere they go. In most arenas, the cheers for the Lakers are almost as audible as they are for the home team. Raise your hand if you kind of hated to see the Spurs in the Finals. Thought so. There has never been anything overtly fascinating or compelling about the Spurs, other than the next category.
Lakers: 10. Spurs: 2.
• CONSISTENCY: This decade, the Spurs averaged 58 wins, dipping below 56 only twice (53 in 1999-2000 and 54 in 2008-09). They made the playoffs every season, reaching the conference finals and beyond five times, the semifinals another three times. Every season you knew the Spurs were among the league's elite. They were the definition of consistent. Meanwhile, although L.A. reached the Finals six times, they weren't even in the contender conversation from 2005-07. And really, the Lakers should have a five-peat instead of a three-peat. Lakers: 4. Spurs: 10.
• BEST TEAM: If you put the 2001 Lakers -- the squad that swept the Spurs out the conference finals and lost one game all postseason -- against the Spurs' championship teams of 2005 or 2007, guess what you'd see? Another massacre. No team this decade can get with that Lakers squad. Not the 2008 Celtics or last season's Lakers. Not the Shaq-Wade Heat (2001 Kobe and 2006 D-Wade are probably a draw, but 2001 Shaq would abuse 2006 Shaq). Definitely not the 2004 Pistons that caught the Lakers sleeping. The 2001 Lakers were an all-time great outfit. Lakers: 10. Spurs: 7.
• FINAL TALLY: Lakers 46. Spurs 35.
Numbers don't lie. The Lakers bullied the Spurs head-to-head, won more championships, had the brighter stars and captured and held fans' attention for 10 years. Ladies and gents, your Team Of The 2000s -- the Los Angeles Lakers.
Vincent Thomas writes "The Commish" column for SLAM Magazine and is a contributing commentator for ESPN. You can e-mail him here or follow him on twitter.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature....spurs.debate/
Yeah, that already had it's own thread, 'Show. Nobody who's a real basketball fan cares about team location or style points.
If you notice, the column posted above said TEAM while Stein was talking FRANCHISE. There's a difference. What Lakers fans commenting on the column seemed to miss was the big picture.
Forbes mentioned the increase in value of 148% and the .709 winning percentage. Stein mentioned that the Spurs were the only team to win 50 games 10 years in a row and the only team to make the playoffs 10 years in a row.
But what Stein also mentioned was this:
There was also Vinny Del Negro, PJ Carlesimo and Terry Porter, all coaches this decade.Quote:
You'll note that four Gregg Popovich/R.C. Buford disciples (Cleveland's Danny Ferry, Phoenix's Steve Kerr, Oklahoma City's Sam Presti and Portland's Kevin Pritchard) are running front offices in other cities. And that three of the decade's younger coach of the year winners (Orlando's Doc Rivers in 2000, Dallas' Avery Johnson in 2006 and Cleveland's Mike Brown in 2009) were also Pop-trained.
See, a franchise takes place both on the court and off. The BIG PICTURE, the Spurs franchise has affected at least 9 franchises this decade, Cleveland, Phoenix, OKC, Portland, Orlando/Boston, and Dallas, Chicago, and Milwaukee. That's 9 out of 29 other teams (not counting the Spurs obviously) or nearly 1/3rd of the remaining teams. And I didn't mention some of the assistants who learned from Pop or worked with him.
Ridiculous. For another franchise that was as successful as the Spurs both on and off the field, you'd really have to look at the NFL and the Pats. The Pats were the team that did it the "Spurs" way and won titles.
On and off the court, the Spurs were the franchise everyone wanted to emulate. And that's why they were the best FRANCHISE this decade.
All of that is nice but a teams accomplishment is a franchise accomplishment in this case. I'm sure if I wanted to say that players and coaches that went thru the Lakers franchise at one point were successful as well in the NBA. Pat Riley, Byron Scott, Kurt Rambis, Jerry West etc. just to name a few. Irrelevant in my opinion. The ultimate goal for each franchise is to win a title or compete for one. A successful franchise is one that it's team wins championships. The Lakers team won 3 straight titles this decade. Only 2 other teams have done so in the history of the NBA. It takes a strong franchise to keep the team winning year after year with free agency and injuries occurring yearly. For that accomplishment the Lakers Franchise is second to none.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Explosion
I agree. Stein is saying that the spurs deserve the honor because they are a small market competing with a big market. Duh, what does that have to do with anything? The teams are working with the same salary cap. If you so choose to go over it, you can but you pay. Teams are all equal in that regards.Quote:
Originally Posted by exstatic
Yeah, to a fan winning make the franchise. But to an owner, he wants to win, but he'd also like his franchise to be successful, meaning make some money, put a great product on the floor and build a brand name.Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShow
Not to mention, the coaches you mentioned were not of the Lakers coaching tree from this decade. The Spurs as a franchise have influenced the decade like no other. The team won using a "Big 3" concept that Boston (Pierce, Kg and Allen), LA (Kobe, Gasol and Odom) and Orlando (Howard, Lewis and Hedo/Vince) have tried to emulate now.
Again, we have 4 other franchises with front office ties to the Spurs, all of which have winning records this year. And the coaches that I named were all successful minus PJ.
Again, their reach goes beyond the players on the court and into the front offices and behind the scenes work. No other team can claim to wield such an influence over the NBA like the Spurs.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...own/index.htmlQuote:
Popovich oversees a kinder, gentler mafia. Four of his former San Antonio associates are now general managers running their own NBA playoff contenders -- Danny Ferry in Cleveland, Sam Presti in Oklahoma City, Steve Kerr in Phoenix and Kevin Pritchard in Portland -- with a combined record of 33-17 over this opening month of the season. The equivalent of an entire NBA division is controlled by Popovich or his offspring.
Think about that for a second. No team in the league has had the success on the court along with the success and influence off the court and in the front office that the Spurs have had the past 10 years. Again, look at the Big Picture to see why the Spurs were called the Franchise of the Decade.
Actually, it's not just that they are a small market that rarely spends into the tax, it's that they're so damned good while doing that. Most of the league is foundering around doing Gilbert Arenas style signings, and the Spurs keep a big three of All Star caliber talent, and surround them with good complementary players, and win while doing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by LakeShow
Like I stated earlier, that's nice but irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Explosion
The Lakers won more titles, defended their title twice and currently have back to back appearances in the finals. Looking good for a 3rd straight appearance in the Finals. The Franchise made money and was the biggest draw in the NBA in the 2000's. The Lakers carried the NBA in 2k. Management kept the Lakers strong and provided the right moves to allow the Lakers to win 3 titles in a row. A feat only accomplished by 2 teams in the history of the game.
The Spurs failed to defend any of their 3 titles in 2k, and they failed to defend their title in *1999. Winning the first title is easy. Defending your title is the ultimate sign of Greatness for team and Franchise. That's why the Lakers are the Franchise of the Decade, again.
Total Votes: 57,694
1) Which is the franchise of the decade?
- Lakers 73.8%
- Spurs 26.2%
Lakers, Spurs dominated the decade that was
Posted Dec 21 2009 12:33PM
Do you realize that all of these "Best of the Decade" lists and shows that you are reading and watching are a year premature?
A decade doesn't start with Year One. After 12 months, you finish Year One. That means you don't finish 10 years, or a decade, until Year Ten is over. The Oughts Decade runs from 2001-2010, not 2000-2009. So all of these lists should be running in December, 2010.
But I respond to the will of the people, and so, here is an All-Decade list, submitted for your approval. Or, disapproval. You know what to do either way: [email protected] or Twitter me @daldridgetnt.
Team/Front Office of the Decade (2001-09)
SAN ANTONIO SPURS
Owner Peter Holt, President of Sports Franchises R.C. Buford, Head Coach/President of Spurs Basketball Gregg Popovich
All you need to know about how the San Antonio Spurs do business can be found in their media guide. The players, and their biographies, come first. Then you get the owner and front office bios. That is not the norm; almost every other team puts its owner or ownership group front and center. But the Spurs are different. They've been different all decade, and that's why they're the gold standard in the NBA.
Yes, San Antonio was extremely lucky to win the Tim Duncan Lottery in 1997. But having a superstar is not enough to win four championships in 10 years, as the Spurs have done. Their ability to procure top-notch talent without having other high draft picks, develop that talent and keep that talent without breaking the bank of a medium-sized revenue team puts them head and shoulders above all other teams.
Many will give the Lakers the title of Best in the Decade, and Los Angeles would be a worthy choice. The Lakers took the first three titles of the decade, and if Shaq and Kobe hadn't gone all Days of Our Lives on everybody, they may have won five or six straight. But they did, and the Lakers didn't. Los Angeles has been to more Finals this decade than San Antonio, and with Bryant and Pau Gasol leading the way, the Lakers could be the team of the 10s. But Los Angeles also had three middling seasons after trading O'Neal to Miami, including a 34-48 disaster in 2004-05.
Tim Duncan and Tony Parker with their '07 hardware.
Nathaniel S. Butler/NBAE via Getty ImagesBy contrast, under Holt, Buford and Popovich, the Spurs have never won fewer than last season's 54 games, won six Midwest/Southwest Division titles (finishing second in the other three seasons), won the three titles and got to five Western Conference finals, and they did so with a payroll that was a fraction of the Lakers' and other top-revenue teams.
Of course, the Spurs reject all such praise.
Told his team was going to be voted the decade's best on Sunday, Buford spent several minutes texting about how good the Lakers have been. Told I wasn't changing my mind, Buford would only say: "We haven't screwed it up that bad."
That's SOP in San Antonio -- a place whose catch phrase is, "get over yourself." It's a Popovich favorite, meaning whatever you think you bring to the party, forget about it. For the Spurs, team and sacrifice trumps everything. It's why Popovich can yell at Duncan, and Duncan doesn't run to the owner or the media to complain. It's why veterans like Michael Finley come late in their careers, knowing they're going to struggle mightily the first year learning Popovich's complex system, especially the defensive rotations. (That's why no one is too worried that Richard Jefferson is struggling so badly. It gets better.)
It's why Popovich can go to Holt, as he did before the 2006-07 season, and said that he -- Holt -- might want to think about making a coaching change, because he -- Popovich -- thought the players were starting to tune him out.
It's why Holt and the ownership group was willing to go deep into the luxury tax this season in order to take one more run at a title.
"Our case, lots of things played out," Holt says. "I get credit, R.C., Pop. But we lucked out on some deals, to be blunt with you. Then we have an ownership group that's strong. No money's come out of that business, ever, at least since 1993. So the debt on the Spurs is way down. And so we as owners have decided for the next couple of years to give us a little bit of a transition period. We're willing to take some (financial) hits. But that's partly because we have so little debt on the business."
It's no coincidence that so many of the Spurs' former executives and coaches have found homes around the league. It's no coincidence that Buford has a close professional relationship with Scott Pioli, who helped build the Patriots' dynasty, and with Mark Shapiro, the longtime general manager of the Cleveland Indians -- who constantly has retooled the Indians when he's been forced to give up on great players his team can no longer afford.
It seems organizations do win championships, after all.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...ip/index.html#
Checkmate! Thanks for posting this. This thread should be pinned everytime the pointless team of the decade debate commences (my team is better than your team, we won 4, your team won 3, your team couldn't repeat..blah, blah,blah!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spurs Brazil
These teams were multi champions...they each own mutltiple pieces of hardware-no need to diminish the other teams accomplishment because 1 has more than the other, etc.