Now that Manu's season is over, who will win the le?

[carrao45]

Cleveland or Boston.

This almost assures the lakers will win the west (they were pretty much a lock anyway), but not the championship. Boston Cleveland AND Orlando a
are superior teams.

why do people forget that LA beat boston both times, and destroyed Cleveland???

[Mugen]

Gotta root for the LakeShow to win it all right?? c'mon we're repz the weeessstt. hahaha sike'

i shall choose the lesser of two evils.

Go Lebron.

[dirk4mvp]

Nuggets unless the Mavs get the 2nd seed.

[DrHouse]

First of all Cav fan STFU.

Your team is 0-2 against the Lakers, losing handily in both games.

Don't give me any BS about your team having the edge over the Lakers, you have absolutely no facts to back that dumbass statement up.

[carrao45]

If I had to guess at this point in the season I would probably take the Cavs, but that could change in a week- I'm that torn up about it

Bull . the Lakers dominated the cavs this year

[ginobili's bald spot]

suck it you socal

You little got hop off my nut sack. You can't even think up your own concept for a name? You have to copy mine? You're like the single white female of posters. You ing bait stalker get a life.

[cobbler]

LMFAO...Spurs have more rings this decade, a better season record, no rape allegations, so on, so forth. So what makes the Lakers the team of the decade except some obvious homer bag such as yourself saying it?

Here... let me show you visually.

2000 Lakers 1
2001 Lakers 2
2002 Lakers 3
2003 Spurs 1
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs 2
2006 Heat
2007 Spurs 3
2008 Celtics
2009 TBD

And here is the simple math you cannot grasp.... 3 = 3.

[Ghazi]

Here... let me show you visually.

2000 Lakers 1
2001 Lakers 2
2002 Lakers 3
2003 Spurs 1
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs 2
2006 Mavs
2007 Spurs 3
2008 Celtics
2009 TBD

And here is the simple math you cannot grasp.... 3 = 3.

Fixed it for you

[Obstructed_View]

Here... let me show you visually.

2000 Lakers 1
2001 Lakers 2
2002 Lakers 3
2003 Spurs 1
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs 2
2006 Heat
2007 Spurs 3
2008 Celtics
2009 TBD

And here is the simple math you cannot grasp.... 3 = 3.

2000 was the last year of the 90s, not the first year of the aughts. 3>2.

[carrao45]

Fixed it for you

nope. Mavs lost

[cobbler]

Fixed it for you

[Harry Callahan]

Hopefully Cleveland.

[cobbler]

2000 was the last year of the 90s, not the first year of the aughts. 3>2.

Clearly only a moron could make such a comment. So you are saying 1980 is not included in the 80's but is in the 70's.

So the Lakers were not the team of the 80's but the 90's.

[Harry Callahan]

You act like Manu playing would have changed anything.

Lakers own the ing Spurs with or without Manu.

Lakers: Team of the decade.

Classless jerks like you give the handful of decent ST LA posters a bad name. In the future, when Kobe has that devestating injury to his ACL or has a fractured leg like Manu has right now, I'll be thinking of you. Come visit us. You will probably disappear just like you did when the Lakers disappeared against Boston last year for several months. You will not be missed around here s bag.

[CubanMustGo]

Manu's injury, while crushing the hopes of Spurs fans, really won't change much of anything as far as the Finals go. Can't see Mike Brown outcoaching Phil, can't see the assorted nuts playing alongside LeBron overcoming the Lakers' role players. 4-2 LA.

[Obstructed_View]

Clearly only a moron could make such a comment. So you are saying 1980 is not included in the 80's but is in the 70's.

Clearly only a moron could fail to understand the concept of a decade being ten years. The first year AD was 1, not 0, therefore every decade begins with 1. That means 2000 is year 10 of the 90s. I thought you wanted to be correct when you started splitting hairs. If you're going to imply that "the decade" means specifically the first decade of the twenty-first century rather than the last ten years, then you have to do it correctly, and the original statement that the Spurs have won more les than the Lakers is still correct.

[cobbler]

I am saddened by the news of Manu's injury. I really was hoping for a WCF match between 2 healthy Laker and Spurs teams. Would have been a classic end of the decade. Good luck Manu and hopes for a speedy recovery!

[Obstructed_View]

Manu's injury, while crushing the hopes of Spurs fans, really won't change much of anything as far as the Finals go. Can't see Mike Brown outcoaching Phil, can't see the assorted nuts playing alongside LeBron overcoming the Lakers' role players. 4-2 LA.

What's incredible this year is that the only team in the east that LA clearly has a psychological advantage over is Cleveland, and they're probably going to beat all the other teams. If Kobe doesn't win it all, I'm really going to enjoy the next year.

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

Just hand us the . One thing is for sure, If we don't get it this year for me is going to be a big dissapointment. Bigger than last season and 04'. IMO

[cobbler]

Clearly only a moron could fail to understand the concept of a decade being ten years. The first year AD was 1, not 0, therefore every decade begins with 1. That means 2000 is year 10 of the 90s. I thought you wanted to be correct when you started splitting hairs. If you're going to imply that "the decade" means specifically the first decade of the twenty-first century rather than the last ten years, then you have to do it correctly, and the original statement that the Spurs have won more les than the Lakers is still correct.

A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).

Use some common sense please. If i was to ask you to name the the best album of the 60's are you going to give me an album from 1970? Regardless of when the the calendar started, it is cleary assumed that when you are talking the 60's, 70's, 80's etc... you are talking 60 thru 69, 70 thru 79 etc.

I mean come on.... I cannot think of anyone (other than you) who would consider 1980 as part of the 70's.

[Obstructed_View]

A decade is a period of ten years. The word is derived from the late Latin decas, from Greek decas, from deca. The other words for spans of years also come from Latin: lustrum (5 years), century (100 years), millennium (1000 years). The term usually refers to a period of ten years starting at a multiple of ten. For example, "the 1950s" refers to 1950 through to 1959 (inclusive).

Use some common sense please. If i was to ask you to name the the best album of the 60's are you going to give me an album from 1970? Regardless of when the the calendar started, it is cleary assumed that when you are talking the 60's, 70's, 80's etc... you are talking 60 thru 69, 70 thru 79 etc.

I mean come on.... I cannot think of anyone (other than you) who would consider 1980 as part of the 70's.

The Julian calendar was ins uted by Julius Caesar more than 2,000 years ago, in what is now known as 46 B.C. More than 800 years later, in the time of Charlemagne, it was officially decided to renumber the years of the Julian calendar, beginning with the supposed birth of Christ. At that time, European counting was based on a decimal system, with ten basic numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. At that time, there was no number 0.

The first year of this calendar was identified by the first number in the number system, the number 1. The first decade ('deca' = ten in Greek) therefore ended with the tenth number, 10. The first century ('cent' = hundred in Latin) therefore ended with the end of the tenth decade, with the hundredth number, 100. The first millennium ('mille' = thousand in Latin) therefore ended with the end of the tenth century, with the thousandth number, 1000.

Following this reasoning, the year 1990 would be considered not the first year of the decade of the 90's, but the last year of the decade of the 80's, and the year 2,000 would be considered not the first year of the third millennium, but the last year of the second millennium.

This is a reasonable and valid way to believe. There is historical justification for this. Most, is not all, official time organizations, such as the Greenwich Royal Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory, use this justification as the 'correct' line of reasoning.

Thanks for playing. Lakers lose either way you want to do it.

[Bob Lanier]

Now that the Wilkins icecap has broken off, where did the eastern capsize?

[Laker-fan-in-SanAnto]

So I guess after we win this season. Were going to be tied with the spurs this decade. 3 rings !!!

[Bob Lanier]

Also, at Obstructed View making a convoluted theological argument to make his basketball team look better in some arbitrary sense.

[baseline bum]

I hope it ain't Boston.