Reply With Quote
My money is on the Lakeshow
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...
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
My money is on the Lakeshow
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...
Fascinating stuff...
Thanks for the unbiased opinion.
This is the last season the Spurs have a shot at a le 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 of a run if they did.
wait..... I heard this last year too..... I swear I heard this.... even ESPN Laker suckers said it.... remind me what happened?
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.
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 le 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 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 les next 6 years, LAL - 1 at most!
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 le and since it is not an actual le, 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 les. 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 le or two and the Spurs don't...that will change.
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 compe ion 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 compe ion 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.
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.
The Lakers are getting younger and younger.
I heard Kobe will be 24 again next year.
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
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 ing 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 bull drama.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
