I just rewatched 2001 WCF and 2002 WCSF of Lakers/Spurs

[Culburn369]

The Lakers are the "Team of the Decade" They won the most in the 80's.

And once & again the Lakers are the Team of the Decade (this decade) with 4. This '09 one really kicked the holy outta of the Spurs Franchise. It further shrunk they're already repeatless accomplishments.

[Culburn369]

They thought we were a long lost memory.

Ain't it the truth! & to squeeze this one in at the ass end of the decade is such a slap in the face!

[Culburn369]

Do you realize that we have started every ing decade with a le contending team.

Makes me proud, Luva. Great citation!

[TheMACHINE]

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals

[mystargtr34]

Of course you did, you the Yankees of the NBA. Sign anyone ya want.

[BadOdor]

Miami Heat = 100% finals winning %!!!1

[BadOdor]

Of course you did, you the Yankees of the NBA. Sign anyone ya want.

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick

[TheManFromAcme]

Miami Heat = 100% finals winning %!!!1

Touche!!

[cobbler]

also, the Larry Bird Celtics are mentioned more in the media as being one of the great basketball teams of all time, despite having won no consecutive championships, than the Pistons or Rockets, who both won consecutive championships.

and i believe that the reason the media doesn't talk about the Spurs is because they've been around for so long, demonstrating success. people expect it; there's nothing to report about. when it's all said and done, and people get a better grasp of history, i think people will look back and categorize the Spurs with the greats.

You are absolutely correct. The Bird Celtics are mentioned as a great team and the Duncan Spurs will go down in history as one too. They both should as they were and are outstanding teams. They actually share a lot in common. While great... both are the 2nd best teams of their respective decades behind the Lakers.

No doubt there are thousands of arguments about the topic but its simple math.

1980's Lakers 5 les, Celts 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 7)
2000's Lakers 4 les, Spurs 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 6)

[mingus]

[mingus]

You are absolutely correct. The Bird Celtics are mentioned as a great team and the Duncan Spurs will go down in history as one too. They both should as they were and are outstanding teams. They actually share a lot in common. While great... both are the 2nd best teams of their respective decades behind the Lakers.

No doubt there are thousands of arguments about the topic but its simple math.

1980's Lakers 5 les, Celts 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 7)
2000's Lakers 4 les, Spurs 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 6)

"team of the decade" talk is self-fallatio as well. tell me how it matters. it's a label conjured up by fans who basically make up that doesn't even exist in order to make themselves feel better. all that matters is LOB's, which this era's Spurs team has, along with he Lakers.

[Dunc n Dave]

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick

And neither did the Spurs.

Boston, on the other hand? Well, ask them how that worked out for them... They had the worst record in the league that year.

[cobbler]

Actually, we had 8 finals appearances in the 80's.

You are correct sir... my bad. I forgot the loss to the 76ers. Damn Andrew Toney.

[cobbler]

And neither did the Spurs.

Boston, on the other hand? Well, ask them how that worked out for them... They had the worst record in the league that year.

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

[mystargtr34]

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick

Dont ever let those pesky facts get in the way of your arguments.

[mystargtr34]

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

Ill agree with you and say Robinson could have, and would have played had the Spurs been in playoff contention. But how many times does breaking a foot, and getting a pin inserted, have a cut and dry recovery time? There can be complications that cause a player to miss more time than initially scheduled, or they can reinjure it by stepping on a court to early.

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

You may call that tanking, you can have your opinion, and honestly the tanking talk doesnt bother me at all because we all know it was a legitimate injury, and there would have been a big risk involved in bringing back your franchise player from a broken bone in his foot.

Besides, that 'advantage' isnt anywhere near the constant advantage the Lakers organization have had throughout their entire 60 year history. But I probably wouldnt complain about it if it was my team who had that advantage, so who cares.

[Dunc n Dave]

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

It's also well do ented that Robinson broke his foot 6 games after missing the first 18 games due to his back, and the Top 4 highest paid Spurs played less than 70 games COMBINED due to COUNTLESS LEGIT injuries.

Robinson: 6 games (back injury, then foot surgery)
Elliott: 39 games (surgery for tendonitis)
Charles Smith:19 games (arthritis in knee, only "questionable" injury, but he sucked anyway)
Chuck Person: 0 games (out for season due to back surgery late in the 94-95 season from a plane accident)

You don't make guys get surgery if they don't need it, just to tank for a #1 pick.

How would the Lakers do if their 4 highest paid players (Kobe, Pau, Bynum, and Odom) had surgeries and all played less than 70 games combined?

[mingus]

You're almost there. Knees bent, mouth wide open, ready to submit.

oh no. a sexual reference, the totality of what you've contributed to this board. at least Colburn or whatever his name is worth reading.

[mingus]

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

the argument ends here, really.

[cobbler]

Ill agree with you and say Robinson could have, and would have played had the Spurs been in playoff contention. But how many times does breaking a foot, and getting a pin inserted, have a cut and dry recovery time? There can be complications that cause a player to miss more time than initially scheduled, or they can reinjure it by stepping on a court to early.

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

You may call that tanking, you can have your opinion, and honestly the tanking talk doesnt bother me at all because we all know it was a legitimate injury, and there would have been a big risk involved in bringing back your franchise player from a broken bone in his foot.

Besides, that 'advantage' isnt anywhere near the constant advantage the Lakers organization have had throughout their entire 60 year history. But I probably wouldnt complain about it if it was my team who had that advantage, so who cares.

You see.... this is how it always is. I make a comment on how it was speculated and reported that the spurs rested players and Robinson in particular to have a chance at Duncan. I wasn't complaining one little bit. If my team had no chance in the season and our star player was hurt I would do the same thing. You yourself agreed on the Admiral speculation.

You could have left it at that. It was speculated. It was reported. I didn't say anything that is not true. But noooooo.... Laker jealousy rears it's head again and you take what was a quality post on your part and make it look petty. Constant advantage?

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good.

[Dunc n Dave]

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good.

You got it all wrong. Pop finally stopped complaining and decided if the Lakers can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

The difference is the Spurs had no shady connections in the Bucks organization, unlike the Lakers with West in the Memphis front office.

[mystargtr34]

You see.... this is how it always is. I make a comment on how it was speculated and reported that the spurs rested players and Robinson in particular to have a chance at Duncan. I wasn't complaining one little bit. If my team had no chance in the season and our star player was hurt I would do the same thing. You yourself agreed on the Admiral speculation.

You could have left it at that. It was speculated. It was reported. I didn't say anything that is not true. But noooooo.... Laker jealousy rears it's head again and you take what was a quality post on your part and make it look petty. Constant advantage?

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good.

The last part of my post wasnt really aimed at you, more just a response to those Lakerfans saying the Spurs tanked to get Duncan, which isnt true.

The other part of my post was in response to your post.

[cobbler]

You got it all wrong. Pop finally stopped complaining and decided if the Lakers can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

The difference is the Spurs had no shady connections in the Bucks organization, unlike the Lakers with West in the Memphis front office.

West denied any invlovement. The memphis GM and owner denied any involvement. And nobody got robbed. All the collusion talk is nothing but sour grapes and conjecture.

[cobbler]

The last part of my post wasnt really aimed at you, more just a response to those Lakerfans saying the Spurs tanked to get Duncan, which isnt true.

The other part of my post was in response to your post.

No problem... it's all good.

[Ditty]

That's because you made so few of those

last 4 finals if you want to be specific

spurs 4-0

lakers 2-2



powned got