Reply With Quote
Assuming that they can keep all that young talent together. If they can, then yes the future is bright.
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.
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.
If the spurs win again it would indeed give you the most les 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 le 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 le. When the lakers won the le in 2k, they demolished the compe ion with the greatest playoff run in NBA history in 2001. That solidified their le! Took all of the Luck talk right out of the equation. The spurs have to do something special or at least defend their le 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.
If the Spurs win another le 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 le throughout the decade, I believe they have.
How about the statement that they won the le (if they win one more) 4 times in 6 years or 5 years if they repeat?
So if the Spurs end up with 4 les 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?????
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.
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.
If the lakers didn't repeat in 88, I would not have considered them the team of the 80's, even with 4 les 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?
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.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.
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
On behalf of Jacque Vaughn, I'd like to thank you for grouping him in as young talent.
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.
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.
This may be true but you fail to acknowledge that the Lakers won 3 straight les 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.
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 les.
Can someone explain to me how making it to the NBA Finals 4 times in 5 years and winning 3 straight les in a row is a "short" window of dominance in the modern NBA?
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 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
The Spurs didn't play thru June for 3 years straight, the Lakers did.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions