Spurs @ Lakers Game 2 - Game Blog

[Harry Callahan]

If your think Wilts play in the waning years of his career as a Laker was anywhere near his performances in Philly then you are delusional. Again, we won 1 le (did you read that in my post moron) with Wilt. And he retired the following year. So i dont think is so absurd for me to post that he was not the player he used to be 1 freaking year before he retired. That happened to be the year of 32 wins. You act as though trading the guys we did for him brought us this slew of championships. I was merely pointing out, it DID NOT! And what does the MVP prove anyway?

And if you want to go a step further, Wilt forced the trade cause he wanted to be in LA and reap the rewards of being in a big market. The only thing absurd around here is your posts. Maybe you should take those rose tinted glasses off you myopic homer.

Fact. The Lakers of West, Baylor, etc had ZERO NBA championships prior to Wilt's arrival - he helped them win one and get to another finals. He was a key player. His numbers were down from Philly because he actually had some scoring help from in the form of West, Baylor, Goodrich, Hairston, etc. He could anchor the defense and I think even lead the team in assists one year in LA. Without Chamberlain, would LA have won any championships in that period? Very likely not. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. Was Chamberlain the same player that he was in 1962 - or course not, but to marginalize his contribution to that 1972 team is truly "delusional".

The Lakers gave up marginal players to get Wilt. That is a fact, regardless of Wilt's personal situation in wanting out. I don't see why it is so difficult to get your mind around the concept that Wilt was one of only two feigning MVPs who were traded to another team in the offseason (Moses Malone was the other). An MVP means you are absolutely one of the top players in basketball when you arrive in LA in 1968. What is so hard to understand about that? There was no need to post huge offensive numbers in LA with that team. Wilt became more of a team player. I was a little kid at the time, but I saw those guys play a good bit on TV. Were you even around those days or see those players? I don't know for sure but I doubt it.

This is pretty much factual stuff on Chamberlain. There's no narrow point of view on this subject from my perspective. I don't think you go from an MVP level player to a declining player in one year.

[cobbler]

Fact. The Lakers of West, Baylor, etc had ZERO NBA championships prior to Wilt's arrival - he helped them win one and get to another finals. He was a key player. His numbers were down from Philly because he actually had some scoring help from in the form of West, Baylor, Goodrich, Hairston, etc. He could anchor the defense and I think even lead the league in assists one year in LA. Without Chamberlain, would LA have won any championships in that period? Very likely not. I don't see why that is so difficult to understand. Was Chamberlain the same player that he was in 1962 - or course not, but to marginalize his contribution to that 1972 team is truly "delusional".

The Lakers gave up marginal players to get Wilt. That is a fact, regardless of Wilt's personal situation in wanting out. I don't see why it is so difficult to get your mind around the concept that Wilt was one of only two feigning MVPs who were traded to another team in the offseason (Moses Malone was the other). An MVP means you are absolutely one of the top players in basketball when you arrive in LA in 1968. What is so hard to understand about that? There was no need to post huge offensive numbers in LA with that team. Wilt became more of a team player. I was a little kid at the time, but I saw those guys play a good bit on TV. Were you even around those days or see those players? I don't know for sure but I doubt it.

This is pretty much factual stuff on Chamberlain. There's no narrow point of view on this subject from my perspective. I don't think you go from an MVP level player to a declining player in one year.

First off, yes i was around and watching then. But again, you doubt it cause thats what you do. Go figure.

Never did i try to marginalize Wilts importance to the TEAM. Did he help us win the le? Absolutely! You made posts that implyed that Wilt was at the top of his game because he was traded after a mvp year as if he was in his prime. You infered that we won les because of lopsided trades like this. I simply pointed out that the Wilt of the lakers was not the DOMINATE Wilt of the Philly years. Thats fact!. We won one le in the 5-6 years he was here before retiring. Fact!

You can go from being a MVP level player to a declining player in the same season, much less year. See Dirk! Fact!

[Harry Callahan]

I am curious as to how you know where the posters on here live? How you know how long they have followed or been a fan of a team? You make statements that have no basis in fact! Do you actually believe your own made up BS? Please inform me how you know these things.

I can certainly understand your disdain for the Lakers. In 10 playoff matchups the Lakers are 7-3. I have nothing but respect for the spurs. Maybe if you werent such a whining little homer you would have some respect for the team that has beat your very good teams at a 2-1 clip in playoff series? Who knows?

Parker falling all over the place cause hes out of control does not mean he was fouled. Certainly, officiating in the NBA is not stellar. However, if you are going to pull out the officiating as a reason you lost either of these two games, see above "whining" comment, cause that's all it is.

Manu is obviously not himself. Get over it. Excuses are for losers plain and simple. Both teams have injuries. It's part of the game. Manu wont blame it. Maybe you should take a page from your own player and man up a little instead of whining ....yet again.

I can't pull out the officiating stuff at all as to why the Spurs are down 2-0. The Lakers have obviously outplayed them - that's a fact. We'll see if SA can get to the line at home and get something going.

It is a fact (not whining) that Manu is not even close to 100%. The Spurs have won their three most recent les leaning on Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. They need them all to win this deep in the playoffs. They are not getting them all going.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If Kobe had the same collective injuries to his hand and foot and Manu was close to 100%, do you think the Lakers would have won their two home games? No. Would you mention something about Kobe "not being right" or "not being himself". Absolutely - and you guys did just that after the Spurs beat the Lakers in 6 games in 2003. There were tons of excuses from the Laker people at that time about Kobe having a bad knee (which he did and got repaired in Colorado - I'm sure you remember that trip). That happens when things don't go your way. You see, that is a two way street.

Its not "Whining" to be disappointed that you get to this point and your key players aren't what they were all season as is the case with Ginobili.

I'll give the Lakers credit for having wonderful teams through the years and winning tons of les. SA had no chance against the early 80's Lakers so sure I've got animosity towards them that started back then- who wouldn't.

What other teams fans don't like about the Laker fans viewpoint (in some cases) is their sense of en lement to winning championships. Your core players get old or retire - let's go buy some more players (O'Neal is the prime example of this with the related Divac for Kobe trade). Those two transactions in 1996 have more or less made the Lakers good for most of the last 12 years. They essentially gave up no players or draft picks for these HOF players. Other teams fans might not like that very much, don't you think. If all the top players were allowed to go to Big market teams, you have no competetive balance and no legit league (like baseball is now).

Cheering for the Lakers is like cheering for the Yankees. No thanks. Their accomplishments are great, but the way the Lakers have been able to do it is not totally on the up and up. The sense of above board compe ive balance was compromised with the Shaq/Kobe stuff. Sorry. I think it taints things a little bit.

A least with the Spurs, they had to have bad seasons and get a lucky lotto break a couple of times. But they still had to be bad to do that. They were then creative in building their team with their other guys. I have a little more respect for their method of actually building over the last 10-12 years than what the Lakers did by just cutting a check. That's just me.

[Harry Callahan]

First off, yes i was around and watching then. But again, you doubt it cause thats what you do. Go figure.

Never did i try to marginalize Wilts importance to the TEAM. Did he help us win the le? Absolutely! You made posts that implyed that Wilt was at the top of his game because he was traded after a mvp year as if he was in his prime. You infered that we won les because of lopsided trades like this. I simply pointed out that the Wilt of the lakers was not the DOMINATE Wilt of the Philly years. Thats fact!. We won one le in the 5-6 years he was here before retiring. Fact!

You can go from being a MVP level player to a declining player in the same season, much less year. See Dirk! Fact!

We'll agree to disagree then. Sorry. BTW - 1968 for Wilt in LA - 21 points and 20 rebounds 1969 in LA -27 points and 18 rebounds (in an injury shorted season). 1970 - 21 points and 18 rebounds again. Those are numbers any player would take in a heartbeat. The numbers were not down for Wilt because he was declining dramatically in one year, the numbers were down due to his supporting cast being better. That's all. He was a decling player by 1973, but not when he first got to LA.

[rascal]

So you come in and discover this site two days ago and start throwing stuff in our faces. Good for you. Some other genius uses his first post to complain about me. Great.

Do you know any of the players the Lakers traded for Chamberlain or Jabbar? Let's truly "examine" this shall we.

The players traded for Chamberlain were spare parts (West and Baylor were not sent packing). Kent Benson, Brian Winters and Junior Bridgeman were the key parts sent to Milwaukee for Jabbar - who forced his way out of Milwaukee in a contract dispute.

A washed up Gail Goodrich at 34 years of age (I think Goodrich was drafted in the mid 1960s by LA) was sent to the Jazz for what became Magic Johnson in 1979 as the #1 pick. Don't be throwing Gail Goodrich around as a great player by the time he got to the Jazz. He was just about finished and the Lakers got Magic for 12 years. That's akin to the Lakers trading Derek Fisher this summer and getting Michael Beasley in the draft the following year.

The Cleveland Cavaliers traded for Don Ford (remember him) and a very low Laker #1 pick (that turned out to be a stiff) for a 1982 #1 pick from Cleveland that turned out to be James Worthy.

Norm Nixon was a declining player when they got rid of him and got the 4th pick in the draft in Scott, back when the 4th pick in the draft could get you well seasoned college player.

The point about O'Neal is they did not have to pay compensation other than the cash to obtain him in 1996. A dominant player in his absolute prime for no draft picks or players. This deal also allowed LA to trade Divac (a guy they no longer needed in the last year of his contract) to the Hornets for the rights to Kobe. Divac left the following year for Sacramento leaving Charlotte with nothing.

Kwame Brown and a couple of low #1s for Gasol is a joke. That is not equal value at all. Kwame had a big contract and no game. Memphis is another in the long line of suckers who have bailed out the Lakers.

I think its clear that it took absolutely no balls to make these trades I have listed above. It just doesn't - the Lakers (to their credit) took advantage of some incompetent organizations through the years to stay on top by landing top players and not have to truly rebuild their roster. Laker fans are completely spoiled over the years and this at ude comes through with many of the posters coming in here this week. The sense of en lement is shown with many of you Laker "Fans".

My team had to endure some really rotten seasons to obtain Robinson and Duncan. These players were picked with #1 owned by SA and yes they were fortunate to win the lottery those two years. Still, the Spurs had the third worst record in the league prior to the 1987 and 1997 drafts.

The lopsided trades like the Lakers have made have not been available to the Spurs. That's the deal. They have had to be creative in building their roster with limited resources the last 10-12 years. The highest draft pick they have had since 1997 has been the 24th pick in the draft. Yet with picks like Parker and Ginobili, they have been able to win championships. I think that's pretty impressive and not as much of a gift.

All this shows is that through the years the Lakers have the better front office in acquiring players through trades or signings while the spurs had to rely on lucky lottery ball bounces. The lakers have the better front office.

[Harry Callahan]

All this shows is that through the years the Lakers have the better front office in acquiring players through trades or signings while the spurs had to rely on lucky lottery ball bounces. The lakers have the better front office.

You missed my point. The Spurs had to be better in acquiring other players to support Duncan and Robinson through the years without any high draft picks or being able to just cut a check.

Even you could cut a check for Shaq. No brainer. For nothing in return.

[cobbler]

I can't pull out the officiating stuff at all as to why the Spurs are down 2-0. The Lakers have obviously outplayed them - that's a fact. We'll see if SA can get to the line at home and get something going.

It is a fact (not whining) that Manu is not even close to 100%. The Spurs have won their three most recent les leaning on Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili. They need them all to win this deep in the playoffs. They are not getting them all going.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If Kobe had the same collective injuries to his hand and foot and Manu was close to 100%, do you think the Lakers would have won their two home games? No. Would you mention something about Kobe "not being right" or "not being himself". Absolutely - and you guys did just that after the Spurs beat the Lakers in 6 games in 2003. There were tons of excuses from the Laker people at that time about Kobe having a bad knee (which he did and got repaired in Colorado - I'm sure you remember that trip). That happens when things don't go your way. You see, that is a two way street.

Its not "Whining" to be disappointed that you get to this point and your key players aren't what they were all season as is the case with Ginobili.

I'll give the Lakers credit for having wonderful teams through the years and winning tons of les. SA had no chance against the early 80's Lakers so sure I've got animosity towards them that started back then- who wouldn't.

What other teams fans don't like about the Laker fans viewpoint (in some cases) is their sense of en lement to winning championships. Your core players get old or retire - let's go buy some more players (O'Neal is the prime example of this with the related Divac for Kobe trade). Those two transactions in 1996 have more or less made the Lakers good for most of the last 12 years. They essentially gave up no players or draft picks for these HOF players. Other teams fans might not like that very much, don't you think. If all the top players were allowed to go to Big market teams, you have no competetive balance and no legit league (like baseball is now).

Cheering for the Lakers is like cheering for the Yankees. No thanks. Their accomplishments are great, but the way the Lakers have been able to do it is not totally on the up and up. The sense of above board compe ive balance was compromised with the Shaq/Kobe stuff. Sorry. I think it taints things a little bit.

A least with the Spurs, they had to have bad seasons and get a lucky lotto break a couple of times. But they still had to be bad to do that. They were then creative in building their team with their other guys. I have a little more respect for their method of actually building over the last 10-12 years than what the Lakers did by just cutting a check. That's just me.

But you did pull out the officiating stuff with your comments about Parker not getting calls. Did you not?

I wish Manu was 100%. I really do. I wish Bynum was playing. I imagine that would make a HUGE difference. He's not. As I said, injuries are part of the game. I would love for all teams to be 100% and for the refs to get every call correct. Neither will be the case. You will never hear me complain about them as well.

If you think getting a lucky lotto ball bounce is a more "up and up" than drafting and paying for free agents then i guess we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot deny the lure of LA to players over small market teams. But that is something that happens in the real world outside of sports as well.

Our "en lement" perception is in a lot of ways reflective of our owner. Where others will shy away from a luxury tax, he will step up if it gives us a chance to win.

Again, I have nothing but respect for the Spurs, their organization, coaching staff etc. Maybe if you didnt despise us so much you would realize that we actually have built this current team by developing astute draft picks over the last 5 years (Walton, Farmar, Sasha, Turiaf, Bynum, Ariza (from Cook draft pick). You have done the same with parker, Manu, obetro etc.

So the difference is a few lotto lucky breaks vs a few breaks on the free agent market. If you choose to feel the lotto luck is more honorable then so be it.

[DazedAndConfused]

Why even bother arguing with this clown cobbler?

Sean Connery said it best:

"Losers are always whining about their best. Winners go home and the prom queen".

[Harry Callahan]

But you did pull out the officiating stuff with your comments about Parker not getting calls. Did you not?

I wish Manu was 100%. I really do. I wish Bynum was playing. I imagine that would make a HUGE difference. He's not. As I said, injuries are part of the game. I would love for all teams to be 100% and for the refs to get every call correct. Neither will be the case. You will never hear me complain about them as well.

If you think getting a lucky lotto ball bounce is a more "up and up" than drafting and paying for free agents then i guess we will have to agree to disagree. I cannot deny the lure of LA to players over small market teams. But that is something that happens in the real world outside of sports as well.

Our "en lement" perception is in a lot of ways reflective of our owner. Where others will shy away from a luxury tax, he will step up if it gives us a chance to win.

Again, I have nothing but respect for the Spurs, their organization, coaching staff etc. Maybe if you didnt despise us so much you would realize that we actually have built this current team by developing astute draft picks over the last 5 years (Walton, Farmar, Sasha, Turiaf, Bynum, Ariza (from Cook draft pick). You have done the same with parker, Manu, obetro etc.

So the difference is a few lotto lucky breaks vs a few breaks on the free agent market. If you choose to feel the lotto luck is more honorable then so be it.

I thought I said the officiating was not the difference in the first two games. Parker gets to the basket a lot in general. In the previous two series he shot more free throws. Still, that is not the reason they lost the first two. Not at all.

I totally agree on the current Laker bench. They on the upswing while the Spurs shall we say "experienced" bench is not. The young guys are helping out for you. Some spring cleaning is in order for the Spurs bench this summer.

What I meant to say on the Spurs having to be creative in putting together rosters with different pieces just about every year (except this one before the Thomas deal). The Spurs have brought in the Ellies, Ferrys, Willis', Stephen Jackson, Antonio Daniels, Kersey, Porter, Kerr, Bowen and so on. The creative edge was with the Parker and Gino draft picks in particular. They beat other teams to those types of players for awhile. Those two guys in particular allowed the Spurs to win les along with DRob and Duncan.

Regardless of what happens this year in the playoffs, I think the Spurs can still compete at a very high level the next couple of years IF the other foreign draft picks from previous drafts (Splitter and Mahimi - seven foot athletes) can come in here along with a PRODUCTIVE #1 pick in this draft. An astute FA signing is also a must. Our big three need some younger help. That is showing right now and needs to be addressed.

The Spurs do not have the financial means to go way over the cap like other teams such as Buss's Lakers. They have had to go another direction. For example, they could not carry an unproductive contract like Kwame Browns for an extended period. Holt cannot swing that.