The Battle for team of the Decade

Lakers with 3 Rings

Spurs with 4 Rings (even giving you your * 1999 championship)

It's between the Lakers and Spurs for team of the decade. If we include your 90's championship the Lakers are still only one ring away from tying the Spurs. The 3peat is the tiebreaker since the Spurs haven't even been able to put together back to back championships. With Bynum's emerging dominance, I'm pretty confident that the Lakers will deliver a few more Rings while he's dominating the paint for the Lakeshow.

Question is can the Spurs finally put together back to back championships and will Tim Duncan be able to stop father time before Bynum dominates the League?


My money is on the Lakeshow :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

My money is on the Lakeshow :toast

---

Odds are 156/1 Las Vegas will get a team before the lakers win another chamionship in the Duncan era.

made that up of course....


The odds are much worse... :devil

Fascinating stuff...

Thanks for the unbiased opinion. :tu

This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

---

wait..... I heard this last year too..... I swear I heard this.... even ESPN Laker cock suckers said it.... remind me what happened?

DAC just posting stupid posts as normal. nothing to see here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m33p0

DAC just posting stupid posts as normal. nothing to see here.

---

Actually what he said is pretty accurate. The Spurs ain't getting any younger.

Please whine about Bynum some more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

Actually what he said is pretty accurate. The Spurs ain't getting any younger.

---

duh. thank you for pointing it out, captain obvious.

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused




This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

The truth:


+ Tiago Splitter (has the potential to do for Spurs as much or more than Bynum for Lakers!)\
+ Ime - you saw tonight a man who will compete hard against Kobe

Spurs have quiet talent waiting in the wings - no worries!

Parker is young, Ginobili and Duncan have years left = Spurs 2 -3 more titles next 6 years, LAL - 1 at most!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phyzik

wait..... I heard this last year too..... I swear I heard this.... even ESPN Laker cock suckers said it.... remind me what happened?

---

and don't forget the money we'll have to spend thanks to our selfless Star.

If only Kobe had done the same, you guys might have been able to surround him with a little more talent.

Team of the decade?

Lakers are the team of the...er...a 3 year period. That's it. Rest of the "decade" they're pretty much not there.

Spurs have won more consistently, and longer...best record over the last 10 yrs than any other sports franchise...in any sport.

So, Lakers are the "team of 3 yrs"....but, Spurs are the team of the decade.

Not even close.

So do the Lakers get an asterisk for the year Timmy blew out his knee?

"Team of the Decade" is a subjective, fan/media generated title and since it is not an actual title, there are no set perameters for determining it, although usually number of championships won is what is used.

To me, the "team of the decade" (if the decade ended today) is San Antonio.

First, you can't count the 99 championship, it didn't happen in this decade.

Then it depends when you determine a decade starts. The 2000's started in, well, 2000. :) Do you start with the first full season of the decade or do you include a season that took place in part of the decade?

If you start with the 2000-01, the first full season of this decade,

LA has two championships and 418 wins (Regular season and playoffs)
SA has three championships and 512 wins.

Edge:SA

If you include 1999-00, then each team has 3 titles. How do you break the tie?
You could use total wins in the decade (including wins this season)

LA has 500, SA has 571

You could use just regular season wins:
LA has 435, SA has 498

You could use just playoff wins:
LA has 65, SA has 73

I disagree about the three-peat being a tie breaker because that only shows that the Lakers were dominant in a three-year period, which they were but three years do not a decade make. IMO, It's about consistency (sp?) throughout the entire decade.

So far the average win total in the 00's is 59 for SA and 48 for LA. (58 and 51 respectively if you include 99-00) This does not include this season, only completed seasons.

Now what do all these numbers mean? Well, they mean I am really bored at work. :)

I would agree that the "Team of the Decade" is not decided. LA is having a very good season and anything can happen in the NBA.

It's all subjective which makes it fun and also makes neither of us right or wrong but my nod is still to SA for now..if Kobe and the Kobe-etts come through with another title or two and the Spurs don't...that will change.

:toast

Spurs have been far more consitent in the win column since 99 than the lakers. The edge goes to the Spurs for team of decade. There hasn't been a year that the spurs have been below the 4th seed in the Duncan era.

LMAO Fakers best competition in their 3 championships was AI's sixers, Nets and Webbers Kings

those 3 teams would get blown out in this day and age

so tired of this repeat thing.. agree about the competition at that time of Lakers winning....look at how hard it is to get to Western Conference... Detroit and Boston are nothing to sneeze at. These Spurs are a dynasty, don't know why media does not recognize it.. but if it motivates the Spurs into another "ship".. so be it.

This is the last year for the current supporting cast around the Big 3. The spots that are unfilled going forward are those currently occupied by Barry and Finley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

---

Why were you a Spurs fan over on the NBA Forum "supporting" jeff on his ridiculous homer statements, and then is now an LA fan acting as someone who send off alarms on the Spurs?? I am definitely dazed and confused on this one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

Actually what he said is pretty accurate. The Spurs ain't getting any younger.

---

The Lakers are getting younger and younger.
I heard Kobe will be 24 again next year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by So Cal

I guess the Spurs did not play during the Lakers 3 peat Dynasty. The Lakers also got to the 2004 Finals.

---

not these spurs or these suns or these mavs or these Pistons.

These Pistons + these SPurs beat the lakers dynasty at it's peak

Unless there's a team of the decade trophy, this isn't worth discussing.

chicago bulls = team of the century :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SouthernFried

Team of the decade?

Lakers are the team of the...er...a 3 year period. That's it. Rest of the "decade" they're pretty much not there.

Spurs have won more consistently, and longer...best record over the last 10 yrs than any other sports franchise...in any sport.

So, Lakers are the "team of 3 yrs"....but, Spurs are the team of the decade.

Not even close.

---

Spurs and Heat are the only teams that haven't won back to backs since 87/88. (Pistons got theirs in 89/90) For the Spurs being such a strong "Dynasty" they should at least be able to win back to backs once. Don't forget '04 (which is outside of that 3 year period) and which team knocked out your "team of the decade".

Gotta give it to the Spurs since they have stayed at top the entire post-jordan era.

Lakers 3 peat is really fucking impressive though. More impressive than the Spurs run, but I'd rather be at the top for 10 years and get 4-5 than be strong for 3 years straight and fizzle out b/c of bullshit drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Unless there's a team of the decade trophy, this isn't worth discussing.

---

There is one the Spurs just don't have one yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

There is one the Spurs just don't have one yet.

---

There isn't one. Why do you have to make things up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

There isn't one. Why do you have to make things up?

---

Don't cry DumpChumper :cry the Spurs still have a chance to win it.

There is nothing to win as far as that goes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRANFAN

so tired of this repeat thing.. agree about the competition at that time of Lakers winning....look at how hard it is to get to Western Conference... Detroit and Boston are nothing to sneeze at. These Spurs are a dynasty, don't know why media does not recognize it.. but if it motivates the Spurs into another "ship".. so be it.

---

Kings and Blazers were stacked. If the competition was so weak I guess the '99 Ring really does deserve an *. And I didn't realize the Cavs were some type of juggernaut. Till you beat Boston don't put them as competition in your championship year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

Why were you a Spurs fan over on the NBA Forum "supporting" jeff on his ridiculous homer statements, and then is now an LA fan acting as someone who send off alarms on the Spurs?? I am definitely dazed and confused on this one.

---

It's the same guy.

I think, the team of the decade must be decided on factors attending within the past ten years. Since it's not the end of 2010 yet, I suggest we start in 1998 (1997 is also OK)till 2008(or 07). So everything in this comment must be understood in the context of what transpired within this period.

For me the spurs win it against the lakers. I choose them for the following reasons:

First, Including the 1999 championship, It's pretty obvious that the spurs edge the Lakers with 4 titles. Along with the individual awards...

Second, Even if we go to the their winning records in the regular seasons , I still think the spurs has the edge. The spurs are regulars in the one, two or three spot in the western conferrence(if not the league). The lakers was ok in the three years they dominate but they didn't have as many wins within the said period. As recorded, spurs is the winniest team in any sport for the past ten years.

Third, There were years that the lakers wasn't able to go to the playoffs (specially after the post shaq era). Spurs on the other hand go there every year since 1999.(they didn't always win the title but they're always in contention). I think, that's what they call consistency...

Fourth (this isn't a hard fact but I guess it worth adding), the spurs made more with less. The spurs achieved everything with a roster that isn't as "spectacular in paper" as the lakers had (at least that what I think). Plus the players is without star complex written over their forehead.

See them for yourselves:

Spurs http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...roster/99/24/1

lakers http://www.lakersuniverse.com/roster.htm

Do I need to say more...Bias may it seems but it is the truth. Ask any NBA buff...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

Spurs and Heat are the only teams that haven't won back to backs since 87/88. (Pistons got theirs in 89/90) For the Spurs being such a strong "Dynasty" they should at least be able to win back to backs once. Don't forget '04 (which is outside of that 3 year period) and which team knocked out your "team of the decade".

---

04 doesn't help either team's cause, neither won the title that year.

Great...Laker trolls.

Hard to give it to any team. It was a shared decade. You can't call the spurs the team of the decade because 2000-02 belonged to the Lakers and they humiliated the Spurs during those years. 2003 the lakers were shooting for 4 straight titles. Something that has only been done by one team in the late 50-'s and they ran out of gas. I still don't consider the 2003 team the better team that season. In 2004 the Lakers resumed their mastery over the Spurs. Since the breakup of the Lakers the Spurs were able to win a couple of titles. Without the breakup, those titles may have never happened.

You have to be able to solidify your championships with a repeat. The Spurs have been unable to do so, so their titles are like the other one and out titles. Not a dynasty!

I would disagree with that. If the Spurs win another title this decade, repeat or otherwise, and LA does not, then i think the dynasty is set. I would rather have 4 non-repeat titles than 3 that came in a row. 4 still beats 3 and in the end, that is all that would matter.

You don't get extra points for back to back titles. By your logic, you are saying that the 90's Rockets are better than the Spurs of the last 10 years because Houston had a back-to-back, even though the Spurs have 4.

At this point I'd have to give the nod to the Spurs simply because they've maintained their dominance over the last 10 years. Thankfully that's all coming to an end now. This is the last shot the Spurs have at a title, age/injuries/health are finally catching up to them. Tons of players will retire after this season and their big 3 just isn't as dominating anymore. They have no real promising young talent outside of Parker. Udoka, Bonner, Vaughan, are decent role players at best. The rest of the league has caught up.

Still, how can you say Pop made more out of nothing? Since when was Manu, Parker, David Robinson, and Duncan nothing?

I don't know, to a lot of your fellow Laker fans, DRob was always nothing. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I would disagree with that. If the Spurs win another title this decade, repeat or otherwise, and LA does not, then i think the dynasty is set. I would rather have 4 non-repeat titles than 3 that came in a row. 4 still beats 3 and in the end, that is all that would matter.

You don't get extra points for back to back titles. By your logic, you are saying that the 90's Rockets are better than the Spurs of the last 10 years because Houston had a back-to-back, even though the Spurs have 4.

---

My thing is that any former champion will tell you that it is harder to repeat than it is to win a title. A team recognized for an honor of Team of the Decade, should at least be able to accomplish a feat that has been accomplished by all of the great teams in NBA history. Titles that are not solidified just shows breaks rather than greatness, imo.

I agree about the difficulty in repeating but if the Spurs stay true to form and not win this year but win in 2009 and finish with more titles than anyone else for the decade....doesn't that qualify them? Who would you put ahead of them if no one has the same or more than them?

I am also curious of your term "solidified" do you not feel that someone the titles are legitimate?

Quote:

---

My thing is that any former champion will tell you that it is harder to repeat than it is to win a title.

---

It's harder to win every other year over five years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

My thing is that any former champion will tell you that it is harder to repeat than it is to win a title. A team recognized for an honor of Team of the Decade, should at least be able to accomplish a feat that has been accomplished by all of the great teams in NBA history. Titles that are not solidified just shows breaks rather than greatness, imo.

---

I don't buy that. Winning 4 titles in 9 years is dominance, doesn't matter if they repeat or not. The fact is they have gone deep in the playoffs damn near every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

---

you've been dazed and confused for so long it's not true, wanted a woman, never bargained for you...

if you think this is the spurs last shot, it's time to go make some money on your deep insight. just don't count on getting paid.

If you cut all the trash talk back and forth, this could actually be a good question and an interesting discussion. If you go by decades, I think you can't count the 1999 Spurs title because that was the 90s. So each franchise has had 3 titles in the 2000s.

The Lakers three-peat does bolster the case for the Lakers as does an added NBA Finals appearance by the Lakers. One thing that does hurt the Lakers argument is that they missed the playoffs altogether in 2004-05.

The Spurs have a very strong case of sustained excellence and winning over a longer span of seasons and winning titles with a couple different teams. There are obviously a couple more seasons for either the Spurs or the Lakers to win more titles and the Spurs would appear to have an edge in winning more over the Lakers, although by 2009 and 2010, you never know if the Lakers find that championship success again. But, I don't think it would be this year for the Lakers while the Spurs definitely have a chance.

All in all, it's a very interesting argument. Right now, I'd probably say the Spurs because of their sustained excellence over the entire decade whereas the Lakers were the best for the first half of the decade only. But, it's really a close call especially because three-peating is so rare. It's a toss up really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

So do the Lakers get an asterisk for the year Timmy blew out his knee?

---

Of course not, that would ruin the Lakers fans fantasies of their superiority, they probably want an Asterisk on the 2003 title as well because Kobe could not wait for the season to end so he could rape that teenage girl, he was distracted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

you've been dazed and confused for so long it's not true, wanted a woman, never bargained for you...

if you think this is the spurs last shot, it's time to go make some money on your deep insight. just don't count on getting paid.

---

Instead of calling me confused point out where you think I"m wrong.

It's a fact the Spurs team is old getting older. Players lose effectiveness as they age and health issues start to come up. We've already seen each of the big 3 go down this season with injuries. Who is waiting in the wings to take over? You have no real young promising talent outside of Tony Parker, and you can't build championship teams around a PG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Instead of calling me confused point out where you think I"m wrong.

It's a fact the Spurs team is old getting older. Players lose effectiveness as they age and health issues start to come up. We've already seen each of the big 3 go down this season with injuries. Who is waiting in the wings to take over? You have no real young promising talent outside of Tony Parker, and you can't build championship teams around a PG.

---

Kobe is closing in on 30 himself and this is the first season since he helped throw Shaq under the bus that the Lakers are a pretty good team. I don't see them winning a title with Kobe, in fact i see him a Laker maybe 1 more year and then he will be traded.

Team of the Decade?

Eff the Lakers. If you want to talk team of the Decade then lets debate that after next Sunday.

Spurs vs. Patriots

Now that's the real match-up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Instead of calling me confused point out where you think I"m wrong.

It's a fact the Spurs team is old getting older. Players lose effectiveness as they age and health issues start to come up. We've already seen each of the big 3 go down this season with injuries. Who is waiting in the wings to take over? You have no real young promising talent outside of Tony Parker, and you can't build championship teams around a PG.

---

I agree that the Spurs are getting older but I think you may be assuming that the Spurs FO is not going to replenish talent. They are going to have some decent money coming so they will be able to build around the Big 3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 41times

Team of the Decade?

Eff the Lakers. If you want to talk team of the Decade then lets debate that after next Sunday.

Spurs vs. Patriots

Now that's the real match-up!

---

Well, I like the Patriots run game but Brady's jumper is suspect at best. :smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

Kobe is closing in on 30 himself and this is the first season since he helped throw Shaq under the bus that the Lakers are a pretty good team. I don't see them winning a title with Kobe, in fact i see him a Laker maybe 1 more year and then he will be traded.

---

Kobe is one of the best athletes in the game today. His physical conditioning is second to none. Like Jordan he will be effective into his late 30's. If you think the Lakers are trading Kobe you truly are an idiot.

The Lakers are stock-piled with young talent. They are still the 2nd youngest team in the NBA. Bynum is only 20 years old, and will be a dominating center for the next 10-15 years. Crittenton is a fantastic young PG prospect who is only 19. Farmar, Turiaf, Sasha, and Ariza are all solid role players already and will only get better with age and experience. They are bringing in Marc Gasol next year to replace Kwame Brown, Gasol is a legit 7 footer who is dominating the Spanish leagues right now. The fact is the Lakers are in a much better position to contend for the next decade than the Spurs are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Kobe is one of the best athletes in the game today. His physical conditioning is second to none. Like Jordan he will be effective into his late 30's. If you think the Lakers are trading Kobe you truly are an idiot.

The Lakers are stock-piled with young talent. They are still the 2nd youngest team in the NBA. Bynum is only 20 years old, and will be a dominating center for the next 10-15 years. Crittenton is a fantastic young PG prospect who is only 19. Farmar, Turiaf, Sasha, and Ariza are all solid role players already and will only get better with age and experience. They are bringing in Marc Gasol next year to replace Kwame Brown, Gasol is a legit 7 footer who is dominating the Spanish leagues right now. The fact is the Lakers are in a much better position to contend for the next decade than the Spurs are.

---

Assuming that they can keep all that young talent together. If they can, then yes the future is bright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I agree that the Spurs are getting older but I think you may be assuming that the Spurs FO is not going to replenish talent. They are going to have some decent money coming so they will be able to build around the Big 3.

---

You can always bring in former All-Stars like Finley to the team, but to replace guys like Tim Duncan your gonna have to tank again and get a good draft pick. FA's like Wade and Lebron aren't coming to SA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

I agree about the difficulty in repeating but if the Spurs stay true to form and not win this year but win in 2009 and finish with more titles than anyone else for the decade....doesn't that qualify them? Who would you put ahead of them if no one has the same or more than them?

I am also curious of your term "solidified" do you not feel that someone the titles are legitimate?

---

If the spurs win again it would indeed give you the most titles in this decade. Which stands at 3. It would give you one more than the lakers. I still wouldn't say that you were the team of the Decade because the Lakers have 3, Miami one and detroit one. Decade covers 2000's and the Spurs did not compete for the title throughout the 2k.

When I say solidify i mean make a statement that you were the champions the year that you won by winning the next season. A lot of former champions failed to do so and are not included in conversation with the great champions that were able to defend their title. When the lakers won the title in 2k, they demolished the competition with the greatest playoff run in NBA history in 2001. That solidified their title! Took all of the Luck talk right out of the equation. The spurs have to do something special or at least defend their title to solidify it. imo

FACT: The San Antonio Spurs are the most successful pro franchise, in any sport, over the past decade. Therefore, they are the "team of the decade". Case closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

If the spurs win again it would indeed give you the most titles in this decade. Which stands at 3. It would give you one more than the lakers. I still wouldn't say that you were the team of the Decade because the Lakers have 3, Miami one and detroit one. Decade covers 2000's and the Spurs did not compete for the title throughout the 2k.

When I say solidify i mean make a statement that you were the champions the year that you won by winning the next season. A lot of former champions failed to do so and are not included in conversation with the great champions that were able to defend their title. When the lakers won the title in 2k, they demolished the competition with the greatest playoff run in NBA history in 2001. That solidified their title! Took all of the Luck talk right out of the equation. The spurs have to do something special or at least defend their title to solidify it. imo

---

If the Spurs win another title in this decade then it would be 4. 2003, 2005, 2007 and then either 08 or 09. I would also disagree that the Spurs did not compete for the title throughout the decade, I believe they have.

How about the statement that they won the title (if they win one more) 4 times in 6 years or 5 years if they repeat?

So if the Spurs end up with 4 titles to LA's 3, that would not make them the team of the decade?

I don't buy into the repeat argument. The Lakers were the team of the 80s regardless of the fact that it took them their 5th and last ring to repeat. The Spurs are the winningest team in the reg seasons during this decade, and that only helps their case. Twice they were eleminated in the semis in very close series, 2004 with the .4 shot and in 2006 in ot of game 7. Knee or no knee, they would not have won in 2000. The lakers were too good.
p.s Jeff, Marc Gasol sucks. Sorry budy, he is nothing like his older bro. Look at the European championships this summer, Garbajosa on a quarter of a leg was a starter in the Spanish team over him. And he allowed Kirilenko to do anything he wanted on the boards in the final. He might be an upgrade over Kwame but please don't tell me you are hoping he is the final piece.
p.s2 weren't you a spurs fan?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

I don't buy into the repeat argument. The Lakers were the team of the 80s regardless of the fact that it took them their 5th and last ring to repeat. The Spurs are the winningest team in the reg seasons during this decade, and that only helps their case. Twice they were eleminated in the semis in very close series, 2004 with the .4 shot and in 2006 in ot of game 7. Knee or no knee, they would not have won in 2000. The lakers were too good.
p.s Jeff, Marc Gasol sucks. Sorry budy, he is nothing like his older bro. Look at the European championships this summer, Garbajosa on a quarter of a leg was a starter in the Spanish team over him. And he allowed Kirilenko to do anything he wanted on the boards in the final. He might be an upgrade over Kwame but please don't tell me you are hoping he is the final piece.
p.s2 weren't you a spurs fan?????

---

Good point.

Lakeshow...by your logic, if the Lakers had not repeated in 88 and only ended up with 4 to Boston's 3, they would not be the team of the 80's. Something I think almost everyone would disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by endrity

I don't buy into the repeat argument. The Lakers were the team of the 80s regardless of the fact that it took them their 5th and last ring to repeat. The Spurs are the winningest team in the reg seasons during this decade, and that only helps their case. Twice they were eleminated in the semis in very close series, 2004 with the .4 shot and in 2006 in ot of game 7. Knee or no knee, they would not have won in 2000. The lakers were too good.
p.s Jeff, Marc Gasol sucks. Sorry budy, he is nothing like his older bro. Look at the European championships this summer, Garbajosa on a quarter of a leg was a starter in the Spanish team over him. And he allowed Kirilenko to do anything he wanted on the boards in the final. He might be an upgrade over Kwame but please don't tell me you are hoping he is the final piece.
p.s2 weren't you a spurs fan?????

---

I didn't say Gasol was the missing piece, we'd just finally have a quality backup Center. The improvement over Kwame will be astronomical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

Good point.

Lakeshow...by your logic, if the Lakers had not repeated in 88 and only ended up with 4 to Boston's 3, they would not be the team of the 80's. Something I think almost everyone would disagree with.

---

If the lakers didn't repeat in 88, I would not have considered them the team of the 80's, even with 4 titles to bostons 3. Because they did repeat, and did something that was not done for 20 years until they did so, they get the nod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

If the lakers didn't repeat in 88, I would not have considered them the team of the 80's, even with 4 titles to bostons 3. Because they did repeat, and did something that was not done for 20 years until they did so, they get the nod.

---

Fair enough. If they had not repeated...who would you consider the team of the 80's?

Quote:

---

The Lakers are stock-piled with young talent. They are still the 2nd youngest team in the NBA. Bynum is only 20 years old, and will be a dominating center for the next 10-15 years. Crittenton is a fantastic young PG prospect who is only 19. Farmar, Turiaf, Sasha, and Ariza are all solid role players already and will only get better with age and experience. They are bringing in Marc Gasol next year to replace Kwame Brown, Gasol is a legit 7 footer who is dominating the Spanish leagues right now. The fact is the Lakers are in a much better position to contend for the next decade than the Spurs are.

---

Is this a discussion for the team of the decade?? or a discussion for the team of the future? Let's do this in 2010. When the lakers are ready to contend with the spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a title with the team they have now. Almost their entire team is on the wrong side of 30. Many key role players will probably retire after this season (Finley, Barry, Horry).

It's going to be at least 1-2 seasons before they can reload the team with some talent, but by then who knows how effective TD and Manu will be. Health and age are catching up with the Spurs already. They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships). I'd say this is their last shot at winning it all, which would make it one hell of a run if they did.

---

This is the first I have heard of any possible retirement of these 2 players.

Just keep thinking to yourself this way. You forgot Ian, Splitter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

They don't have any real promising young talent either (Bonner, Udoka, Vaughan are not going to win championships).

---

On behalf of Jacque Vaughn, I'd like to thank you for grouping him in as young talent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

Hard to give it to any team. It was a shared decade. You can't call the spurs the team of the decade because 2000-02 belonged to the Lakers and they humiliated the Spurs during those years. 2003 the lakers were shooting for 4 straight titles. Something that has only been done by one team in the late 50-'s and they ran out of gas. I still don't consider the 2003 team the better team that season. In 2004 the Lakers resumed their mastery over the Spurs. Since the breakup of the Lakers the Spurs were able to win a couple of titles. Without the breakup, those titles may have never happened.

You have to be able to solidify your championships with a repeat. The Spurs have been unable to do so, so their titles are like the other one and out titles. Not a dynasty!

---

The Spurs were 8-2 against the Lakers in 2003. In the playoffs that year, the Spurs won it in 6 games but in reality it was a 5 game asskicking they gave to the Lakers. They controlled EVERY game outside of game 3. They lead by 10 in game 1, 33 in game 2, 16 in game 4, 25 in game 5, and won by 28 in game 6. They gave the Lakers the worst dethroning in NBA History (28 point loss was the worst elimination for a defending champion in NBA history). If the Spurs had kept Jackson and Claxton the next season, they would have humiliated the Lakers worse than they did in 03. They didnt embarass the Spurs in 2002 despite that series being 5 games. The Spurs had a solid lead in the 4th quarter but Duncans supporting cast sucked. Thats why Manu/Jax/Claxton made a huge difference in 03. Lakers didnt play the Spurs in 2000 but if you want to talk regular season series Spurs won 3 out of 4 contest. 2001 was the only year Lakers destroyed the Spurs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by samikeyp

Fair enough. If they had not repeated...who would you consider the team of the 80's?

---

I would have to say LA and Boston were the teams of the 80's.

These LA guys think they are going back the good old days where they could just buy someone or a team would make a horrible trade - like the rights to Kobe for an aging Vlade D in the last year of his contract to the Hornets.

Face it, Kobe's had several medical procedures on his knees. He has played an enormous number of minutes his entire career. I don't care how much he conditions himself, the wear and tear is going to catch up with him soon. It will be a dramatic decline. BTW, is Kobe even signed after next season? I don't think so. Without him, this is a .500 basketball team at the very best.

LA has not won a championship in almost 5 years. That was really a pretty short window of success to me (the 2000-2002 seasons). Missing the playoffs entirely after Shaq left is not good.

When the Spurs' era of dominance ends, the Laker fans need to look to the Pacific Northwest to see the next franchise that will put them in their place. Portland - their talent will overwhelm the Lakers very soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

The Spurs were 8-2 against the Lakers in 2003. In the playoffs that year, the Spurs won it in 6 games but in reality it was a 5 game asskicking they gave to the Lakers. They controlled EVERY game outside of game 3. They lead by 10 in game 1, 33 in game 2, 16 in game 4, 25 in game 5, and won by 28 in game 6. They gave the Lakers the worst dethroning in NBA History (28 point loss was the worst elimination for a defending champion in NBA history). If the Spurs had kept Jackson and Claxton the next season, they would have humiliated the Lakers worse than they did in 03. They didnt embarass the Spurs in 2002 despite that series being 5 games. The Spurs had a solid lead in the 4th quarter but Duncans supporting cast sucked. Thats why Manu/Jax/Claxton made a huge difference in 03. Lakers didnt play the Spurs in 2000 but if you want to talk regular season series Spurs won 3 out of 4 contest. 2001 was the only year Lakers destroyed the Spurs.

---

This may be true but you fail to acknowledge that the Lakers won 3 straight titles and were trying to win 4 in a row. It's a reason why that hasn't been done before other than the 50's Celtics. Stamina had everything to do with that year for the lakers. After a years rest of not playing thru June, they regrouped and continue to spank the spurs.

Sure they humiliated the Spurs in 2002. The Lakers would play with them until the forth quarter and pull out a victory. No Spurs lead was secured against that team throughout the playoffs. I still remember how the crowd would gush and say OH NO, here they come again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Callahan

These LA guys think they are going back the good old days where they could just buy someone or a team would make a horrible trade - like the rights to Kobe for an aging Vlade D in the last year of his contract to the Hornets.

Face it, Kobe's had several medical procedures on his knees. He has played an enormous number of minutes his entire career. I don't care how much he conditions himself, the wear and tear is going to catch up with him soon. It will be a dramatic decline. BTW, is Kobe even signed after next season? I don't think so. Without him, this is a .500 basketball team at the very best.

LA has not won a championship in almost 5 years. That was really a pretty short window of success to me (the 2000-2002 seasons). Missing the playoffs entirely after Shaq left is not good.

When the Spurs' era of dominance ends, the Laker fans need to look to the Pacific Northwest to see the next franchise that will put them in their place. Portland - their talent will overwhelm the Lakers very soon.

---

It was a short, DOMINATING Window for the Lakers, only one other team can claim to be as dominate, and that's the bulls. Missing the playoffs after Shaq, Phil, and all of his teammates had something to do with them missing the playoffs. I think George was the only player left with Kobe that played for the 2000-02 Lakers.

Sorry but the Spurs have no era of dominance. They haven't even defended any of their titles.

Can someone explain to me how making it to the NBA Finals 4 times in 5 years and winning 3 straight titles in a row is a "short" window of dominance in the modern NBA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5Mai...hp?page=breves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

This may be true but you fail to acknowledge that the Lakers won 3 straight titles and were trying to win 4 in a row. It's a reason why that hasn't been done before other than the 50's Celtics. Stamina had everything to do with that year for the lakers. After a years rest of not playing thru June, they regrouped and continue to spank the spurs.

Sure they humiliated the Spurs in 2002. The Lakers would play with them until the forth quarter and pull out a victory. No Spurs lead was secured against that team throughout the playoffs. I still remember how the crowd would gush and say OH NO, here they come again.

---

Only reason why they would pull out the victories is because Duncan didnt have enough help. Thats why the next year when he had better players/shooters/slashers, they raped the living fuck out of LA. They lost some of those key guys and replaced them with downgrades which didnt help them much in 04 against the Lakers. If you are going to throw the stamina card for 2003, then the Spurs didnt have Duncan in 2000, and didnt have the slashers/shooters in 2001 and 2002. Then when they were healthy and had those types of players, they dominated the Lakers. Then lost those players and lost in 04.

only explanation for 04 is 0.4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

Only reason why they would pull out the victories is because Duncan didnt have enough help. Thats why the next year when he had better players/shooters/slashers, they raped the living fuck out of LA. They lost some of those key guys and replaced them with downgrades which didnt help them much in 04 against the Lakers. If you are going to throw the stamina card for 2003, then the Spurs didnt have Duncan in 2000, and didnt have the slashers/shooters in 2001 and 2002. Then when they were healthy and had those types of players, they dominated the Lakers. Then lost those players and lost in 04.

---

The Spurs didn't play thru June for 3 years straight, the Lakers did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Callahan

These LA guys think they are going back the good old days where they could just buy someone or a team would make a horrible trade - like the rights to Kobe for an aging Vlade D in the last year of his contract to the Hornets.

Face it, Kobe's had several medical procedures on his knees. He has played an enormous number of minutes his entire career. I don't care how much he conditions himself, the wear and tear is going to catch up with him soon. It will be a dramatic decline. BTW, is Kobe even signed after next season? I don't think so. Without him, this is a .500 basketball team at the very best.

LA has not won a championship in almost 5 years. That was really a pretty short window of success to me (the 2000-2002 seasons). Missing the playoffs entirely after Shaq left is not good.

When the Spurs' era of dominance ends, the Laker fans need to look to the Pacific Northwest to see the next franchise that will put them in their place. Portland - their talent will overwhelm the Lakers very soon.

---

Portland's supposed franchise center has already had microfracture surgery on his knees and he hasn't even played one damn game in the NBA yet. I wouldn't crown them just yet.

Bynum is proven talent as far as I'm concerned. There is a reason why every single NBA analyst, GM, and coach has touted this kid as the best young center prospect in the NBA outside of Dwight Howard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

Only reason why they would pull out the victories is because Duncan didnt have enough help. Thats why the next year when he had better players/shooters/slashers, they raped the living fuck out of LA. They lost some of those key guys and replaced them with downgrades which didnt help them much in 04 against the Lakers. If you are going to throw the stamina card for 2003, then the Spurs didnt have Duncan in 2000, and didnt have the slashers/shooters in 2001 and 2002. Then when they were healthy and had those types of players, they dominated the Lakers. Then lost those players and lost in 04.

---

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Results are all that matters. If the Spurs had such a great team then why'd they dismantle it? You play the game with the players you have and let the chips fall where they may. You don't whine like a little bitch after you lose. Oh wait, you're a Celtics fan whose team hasn't been relevant in over two decades. My mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lakeshow1

The Spurs didn't play thru June for 3 years straight, the Lakers did.

---

So that's the excuse why they got their asses handed to them in 2003? It wasnt because the Spurs literally outplayed them? I mean having leads like they did in that series cant be sugercoated by "playing in June for 3 years in a row." Whats the plan B excuse? Rick Fox would have made a difference in that series?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

So that's the excuse why they got their asses handed to them in 2003? It wasnt because the Spurs literally outplayed them? I mean having leads like they did in that series cant be sugercoated by "playing in June for 3 years in a row." Whats the plan B excuse? Rick Fox would have made a difference in that series?

---

It's not an excuse. Its a fact! Look it up and show me where another team did that and won the title. :smokin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. Results are all that matters. If the Spurs had such a great team then why'd they dismantle it? You play the game with the players you have and let the chips fall where they may. You don't whine like a little bitch after you lose. Oh wait, you're a Celtics fan whose team hasn't been relevant in over two decades. My mistake.

---

They are relevant now. Oh wait, you're a Lakers fan who witnessed the Celtics kicking their asses all over the court in both meetings this year. My mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Portland's supposed franchise center has already had microfracture surgery on his knees and he hasn't even played one damn game in the NBA yet. I wouldn't crown them just yet.

Bynum is proven talent as far as I'm concerned. There is a reason why every single NBA analyst, GM, and coach has touted this kid as the best young center prospect in the NBA outside of Dwight Howard.

---

Even without Oden, Portland is moving very quickly past LA with their roster. What about Kobe? The clock is ticking and his "Franchise Center" dislocated his kneecap - out for two months? The current collection of players in LA outside of Kobe is OK, but nothing to be afraid of.

The Lakers have gone past the first round of the playoffs once in the past five years. Sorry Faker fans. Not your decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

They are relevant now. You should know that after the way they kicked your asses in both meetings this year.

---

LOL it only took you 20+ years and an ex-Celtic GM to get you there! At least we've managed to be a relevant team the whole way through. The Lakers have the highest winning percentage of any NBA team in history. We've been THE team since the 1970's, Boston got all their rings when there were only 12 or so teams in the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

LOL it only took you 20+ years and an ex-Celtic GM to get you there! At least we've managed to be a relevant team the whole way through. The Lakers have the highest winning percentage of any NBA team in history. We've been THE team since the 1970's, Boston got all their rings when there were only 12 or so teams in the league.

---

and when Doctors and Lawyers bought their sons a spot on the teams. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Callahan

Even without Oden, Portland is moving very quickly past them with their roster. What about Kobe? The clock is ticking and his "Franchise Center" dislocated his kneecap - out for two months? The current collection of players in LA outside of Kobe is OK, but nothing to be afraid of.

The Lakers have gone past the first round of the playoffs once in the past five years. Sorry. Not your decade bud.

---

Right because Tim Duncan has never gone down with an injury. Injuries are a part of life, and Bynum' setback will not cost him down the line. He will recover completely from it and could come back earlier than 8 weeks.

You really are an idiot. Franchise center + Best player in the NBA = championship team. Or maybe you forgot about Shaq & Kobe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Callahan

Even without Oden, Portland is moving very quickly past LA with their roster. What about Kobe? The clock is ticking and his "Franchise Center" dislocated his kneecap - out for two months? The current collection of players in LA outside of Kobe is OK, but nothing to be afraid of.

The Lakers have gone past the first round of the playoffs once in the past five years. Sorry Faker fans. Not your decade.

---

Kobe's only 29 too you moron. He will be an effective player like Jordan was into his late 30's. He doesn't need his athleticism to dominate the game.

I would be a lot more impressed with the Lakers and the future if they were developing a PG instead of the archaic Fisher. Fact is they will only go as far as Kobe lets him and historically big men like Duncan play longer and better than even athletic swing men. Plus wake me when Bynum can defend anyone - shot blocker he is but he is also slow to respond, K. Brown for all his faults is a better defender of Duncan and other bigs. Again, T. Splitter has the potential to be every bit as dominant for Spurs alongside Duncan as Bynum can be on the Lakers with the mentally
soft Odom beside him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rummpd

I would be a lot more impressed with the Lakers and the future if they were developing a PG instead of the archaic Fisher. Fact is they will only go as far as Kobe lets him and historically big men like Duncan play longer and better than even athletic swing men. Plus wake me when Bynum can defend anyone - shot blocker he is but he is also slow to respond, K. Brown for all his faults is a better defender of Duncan and other bigs. Again, T. Splitter has the potential to be every bit as dominant for Spurs alongside Duncan as Bynum can be on the Lakers with the mentally
soft Odom beside him.

---

Jordan Farmar maybe?

Please, you obviously have not followed Bynum this season. Kwame can't get back his starting position because Bynum controls the paint. He was playing excellent defense before injury.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rummpd

I would be a lot more impressed with the Lakers and the future if they were developing a PG instead of the archaic Fisher. Fact is they will only go as far as Kobe lets him and historically big men like Duncan play longer and better than even athletic swing men. Plus wake me when Bynum can defend anyone - shot blocker he is but he is also slow to respond, K. Brown for all his faults is a better defender of Duncan and other bigs. Again, T. Splitter has the potential to be every bit as dominant for Spurs alongside Duncan as Bynum can be on the Lakers with the mentally
soft Odom beside him.

---

LOL do you even follow basketball? Jordan Farmar and Javaris Crittenton are both excellent PG prospects the Lakers are grooming to take over when Fisher is done.

Bynum's defense has improved by leaps and bounds, and he was already better than Kwame before he went down. In the last 10-15 games he played he was literally averaging over 3-4 blocks a game. And it's not just about blocks, his presence in the lane is an intimidation factor towards penetrating guards and he alters many shots that he doesn't block.

Tiago Splitter hasn't proved shit in the NBA, Bynum has. Until he does then you can't make that argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

LOL it only took you 20+ years and an ex-Celtic GM to get you there! At least we've managed to be a relevant team the whole way through. The Lakers have the highest winning percentage of any NBA team in history. We've been THE team since the 1970's, Boston got all their rings when there were only 12 or so teams in the league.

---

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao The days of Domique Wilkins in his decline, Antoine Walker, Rodney Rodgers. Sadly that is true. We were a laughing stock for some time. Hell other than this past summer, beating the Bulls on opening night in 97 and going to the ECF with that shitty roster in 2002 were the high moments the past 10 years.

Absolutely stupid fucking thread.

No team, in any sport, has won more than the SA SPURS over the last decade. Period!

So, the TEAM of the last decade is the SPURS. No contest, no debate...fact.

Now, if you want to figure out the team of the 2000-2010 Decade...bring it up in 2010!

Christ...rofl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Kobe's only 29 too you moron. He will be an effective player like Jordan was into his late 30's. He doesn't need his athleticism to dominate the game.

---

I am not a moron - you are. Andrew Bynum is a decent, developing player, but he is NOT there yet. He is NOT a dominating player. He also has an element of immaturity and flakiness as well. By the time he "gets it" - Bryant MAY no longer be a dominant player.

Bryant has been playing huge minutes since he was 18 or 19 years old - it is entirely possible Kobes' legs break down on him much sooner than Jordan's did, who entered the NBA at 21. That's an extra three years of wear and tear on his body. Hasn't Kobe had surgery on his knees and ankles several times in the last three or four off seasons?

Remember back in the summer, Bryant wanted to leave your beloved Lakers. He can opt still out after next year if he wants to. You must be Dazed and Confused if you think Bryant does not need his hops and explosiveness to be effective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bostonguy

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao The days of Domique Wilkins in his decline, Antoine Walker, Rodney Rodgers. Sadly that is true. We were a laughing stock for some time. Hell other than this past summer, beating the Bulls on opening night in 97 and going to the ECF with that shitty roster in 2002 were the high moments the past 10 years.

---

Cheer up you have a team that is good enough to make the NBA Finals for the next 3-4 years. You also have the Red Sox and Patriots. Life is good in Boston.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Cheer up you have a team that is good enough to make the NBA Finals for the next 3-4 years. You also have the Red Sox and Patriots. Life is good in Boston.

---

Oh I know that. I just laugh and remember those times. I cant hate Ainge for making these moves even if it means a short 3-4 year window. If he didnt make these moves, we would still be a below average team.

Kenny Anderson :lmao

IF the Celts had gotten lucky in the 97 draft, we might have seen Lakers/Celts rivalry renewed during the 2000's. But instead we drafted Billups.



Ron Mercer :lmao :lmao :lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

Instead of calling me confused point out where you think I"m wrong.

It's a fact the Spurs team is old getting older. Players lose effectiveness as they age and health issues start to come up. We've already seen each of the big 3 go down this season with injuries. Who is waiting in the wings to take over? You have no real young promising talent outside of Tony Parker, and you can't build championship teams around a PG.

---

well, technically they are older. they are .3 years older than last season. but they pretty much have been the same age since the start of the 2004-05 season (above 30, below 31).

yes, players eventually lose their effectiveness. michael jordan didnt play as well his last two season. but you didnt actually say who lost their effectiveness. there is nothing to dispute here.

spurs big three have had injuries. yes. maybe tim duncan was losing his effectiveness in 1998 when he was injured against the jazz in the playoffs. or maybe injuries happen to players of any age and you dont have anything here.

and you say they have no promising young talent outside tony parker. i dont know what is "promising" and what is not. spurs have several young players dying to play for the spurs and one or two or three might turn out to be as good as say... bynum. just because they stash their players in d-league and overseas means nothing. they have been successful doing that before.

sorry, i was just playing on your name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Harry Callahan

I am not a moron - you are. Andrew Bynum is a decent, developing player, but he is NOT there yet. He is NOT a dominating player. He also has an element of immaturity and flakiness as well. By the time he "gets it" - Bryant MAY no longer be a dominant player.

Bryant has been playing huge minutes since he was 18 or 19 years old - it is entirely possible Kobes' legs break down on him much sooner than Jordan's did, who entered the NBA at 21. That's an extra three years of wear and tear on his body. Hasn't Kobe had surgery on his knees and ankles several times in the last three or four off seasons?

Remember back in the summer, Bryant wanted to leave your beloved Lakers. He can opt still out after next year if he wants to. You must be Dazed and Confused if you think Bryant does not need his hops and explosiveness to be effective.

---

When you lead the league in FG% and are 2nd in dunks only to Dwight Howard you ARE there. When you are in the top 10 in rebounding and blocks you ARE there. Bynum has arrived, clearly to the dismay of fans around the league. He's going to dominate this league for years to come, and the scariest thing of all is he is only 20 years old. When Bynum bulks up even more and really develops into his athletic potential nobody will be able to contain him on the block. 7 ft centers with his length, athleticism, footwork, speed, soft hands and touch, and willingness to learn don't grow on trees. He's also being tutored by the best Center of all time in the NBA, KAJ.

The Lakers hit a homerun out of the park when they drafted this kid.

:elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant :elephant



:blah :blah :blah :blah :toast :toast

The SPURS are far and away much better than the Lakers. Hands down. They had a 3-peat. Big F'in Deal! What have they done since then!? Oh, thats right NOTHING! Yes, the spurs have not repeated, but have they missed the playoffs like your lakers? And that year that they did make it to the finals, what happened? they got utterly embarassed by the pistons. The same pistons that the spurs beat!

So for what its worth, you can take your 3-peat and hold on to it for dear life, cuz thats the only memory of a title you will have!

The "*" '99-championship doesnt need an *...everyone played the exact same amount of games the spurs played; the spurs just were the ones that played the best. Besides, if ANY team has showed that they come on strong, if not stronger, towards the end of a season, its has been the Spurs!

Let it go....until you actually win again or even make it deep into the playoffs, you have no fodder for your pathetic fire.

Build a bridge..................and get over the fact that your team WAS good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

LOL it only took you 20+ years and an ex-Celtic GM to get you there! At least we've managed to be a relevant team the whole way through. The Lakers have the highest winning percentage of any NBA team in history. We've been THE team since the 1970's, Boston got all their rings when there were only 12 or so teams in the league.

---

And the competition couldn't even make it as Accountants today. :stirpot:

Earlier today when Purple and Gold heard Gasol was traded to the Lakers.
------------
Purple and Gold to wife: "Honey, where did I pack the Laker car flags?"

Wife to Purple and Gold: "I don't know honey. It's been years since we packed those away."

As he rummages through boxes of christmas decorations and old Raider gear, he finds his threepeat car flag.

"Nevermind. I found it." He places his Laker carflag proudly on his white mini-van as championship dreams dances through his head.

-------------
Keep on dreamin, Lakerfan.

FTL!