April 11th, 2002

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    April 11th, 2002

    The City of Los Angeles honored their team's Minneapolis roots by hanging a banner in the rafters before a regular season game in 2002....the team began their new era as the Los Angeles Lakers in 1960.....it took 43 years for the city to acknowledge the Minnesota titles....

    My position is that  Laker fans (everywhere) can count all of the titles.....but it does seem like it took a very long time and only occurred when the team began chasing the Celtics.....no flaming....just my opinion...these are without question the two most storied franchises in league history....and, in my opinion, the greatest rivalry in sports....
     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    I agree with your post.....and you are absolutely correct....this is not taking a shot at the fans or the franchise.....it just seems strange that there was no ceremony before opening night in 1960....no mention throughout the 60's of Baylor and West.....nothing in the 70's when LA won the first title....nothing in the Magic/Bird '80's era....no titles in the '90's....and no mention of the history....then, after repeat titles and a shot at the three-peat....up goes the banner...43 years after the move to LA.....I don't think the timing was a coincidence...again...just my opinion...the Lakers are an all time great franchise, right up there with our Celtics...their fans should be proud...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from MinnesotaCelticsFan. Show MinnesotaCelticsFan's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    People can claim what every they want, and like religion, there are different points of view.

    By adding the Minnesota championships to their own, they are trying to add resonance to their image. ...sorry, but I don't buy the marketing. If they ment it for any other reason than marketing, they would have retired Georges number.
    Mikan was the first true great big man, before Russell, and before Chamberlain.

    Boston Celtics 17 championships.

    LA Lakers 11 championships.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    Again, right on my friend!!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    you know, you are right about Mikan....the first great big man and the first superstar in this league....and his number isn't retired....? ...talk about a lack of respect....as with the clamor for Russ' statue in Boston, there should be the same clamor for Mikan's jersey......when he played in Madison Square Garden the marquee read "Knick's vs Mikan tonight"......I've seen it in numerous books.....
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    ....as the playoffs continue....I'm going to bring this to the table one more time....by the end of the season we could be tied....what say you fans (on both sides)....?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    Regardless what all of you think, the franchise still owns 16 (soon to be 17) NBA titles. Go to ESPN, Sporting News, NBA.com or any of the other sports media and they'll list 16 titles for the L.A./Minneapolis Lakers. NONE of you have to accept the Lakers titles, but the entire sporting universe acknowleges it. So bury your head in the sand, or click your heels and say "there's no place like home...there's no place like home" or do what ever you do to soothe your spirits, but it won't change that fact. And when they get that 17th, those same media outlets will say the Lakers now hold the record (along with the Celtics) for most NBA titles.

    And they're probably in a better position than the C's to take sole possession of that record the following year.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    According to the Q -
    IF OKC wins the title this year - which is NOT impossible, it will be their second...........right Q?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    Q.....I have never been of the opinion that the Minny titles should not be counted....they all belong to the franchise and Laker fans are entitled to celebrate all of them....my problem with this argument is that the city of Los Angeles waited 43 years to even recognize them....I believe, as do many others, that this was an effort to "enhance" the franchise and it's history as the Lakers started getting closer to the Celtics......now, all we hear are Laker fans telling us that they are about to pass our team's record of championships.....maybe so, but there is a considerable difference when comparing those titles.....all of Boston's came during the "modern NBA" which is generally recognized as during the shot clock era.....the first five Laker titles came in a game that doesn't even look like today's game.....in fact, the league changed several rules and the game changed overnight!!....I won't get into all of the rules changes....suffice it to say that the Lakers' early titles came in a league where one team could win 18-17......where a team could take two or three times the number of foul shots as field goal attemps..... the changes that were put into place immediately changed the way the game was played, and with that, the Celtics became the dominant franchise for the next 40 years or so......simply put, in the modern era, the Celtics have 17 titles.....no other franchise is close.... 
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    oh, almost forgot.........Celtics 9.....Lakers 3......
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    ....and finally.....the Lakers are as old as the Celtics as far as future titles go my friend.....
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    In Response to Re: April 11th, 2002:
    [QUOTE]According to the Q - IF OKC wins the title this year - which is NOT impossible, it will be their second...........right Q?
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, it would be unless the franchise agreed to leave everything...like the Cleveland Browns when they left and won a title in Baltimore as THE RAVENS. In that case, that is Baltimore's first title with the Ravens. The Colts took all their's while leaving in the middle of the night.

    I don't know if OKC had to leave the Seattle Sonics trophy, but if not, I'm sure the Thunder have it displayed somewhere.

    Is that clear enough for you hedley?
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    In Response to Re: April 11th, 2002:
    [QUOTE]Q.....I have never been of the opinion that the Minny titles should not be counted....they all belong to the franchise and Laker fans are entitled to celebrate all of them....my problem with this argument is that the city of Los Angeles waited 43 years to even recognize them....I believe, as do many others, that this was an effort to "enhance" the franchise and it's history as the Lakers started getting closer to the Celtics......now, all we hear are Laker fans telling us that they are about to pass our team's record of championships.....maybe so, but there is a considerable difference when comparing those titles.....all of Boston's came during the "modern NBA" which is generally recognized as during the shot clock era.....the first five Laker titles came in a game that doesn't even look like today's game.....in fact, the league changed several rules and the game changed overnight!!....I won't get into all of the rules changes....suffice it to say that the Lakers' early titles came in a league where one team could win 18-17......where a team could take two or three times the number of foul shots as field goal attemps..... the changes that were put into place immediately changed the way the game was played, and with that, the Celtics became the dominant franchise for the next 40 years or so......simply put, in the modern era, the Celtics have 17 titles.....no other franchise is close.... 
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    A case can also be made that the C's won their titles at a time when the league had a third to a half as many teams. Most of the Lakers titles have come with an expanded playoffs and so many  more teams to go  through. Any way that you slice it and dice it, the Lakers still own 16 titles, the Celtics 17.
     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    In Response to Re: April 11th, 2002:
    [QUOTE]oh, almost forgot.........Celtics 9.....Lakers 3......
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke, I thought you were above that. Apparently not.

    But let me point out that THOSE days of dominance are long over. Magic Johnson put an end to what many of you Celtics fans believed was "the Celtics mystique"...your God given right to beat the Lakers in any championship series. Nevermore.

    And the Lakers have won 3 of the last 5 championships head-to-head.

    You guys can live in the past, we prefer to look ahead to the future. And if DA keeps on picking up stiffs (Krstic) and broken down, past-their-prime vets (the O'Neals), you guys aren't going to have much of a future to look forward to. Mitch Kupchak will see to it that the Lakers continue to have the kind of players to compete for NBA titles. Don't forget, Blake Griffin becomes a free agent in a few years, and he gets to look up at all those purple and gold banners nightly.

    I'm just sayin'...
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    9-3 is true, but only because Bill Russell was there for 7 of them. After he retired it's a much more reasonable 3-2 in our favor. Said it before, it's like going to war against a nation that is armed with Tanks and you're relying of a cavalry charge to stop them.

    Duke most can't answer why it took until 2002 for us to do anything in regards to the Minneapolis teams.

    Stated my opinions on the Minneapolis years many times here. The official honoring of the titles was opportunism by Dr Buss. In the '90s he stated that what happened in Minneapolis stayed in Minneapolis. Really I think that's case closed on the whole issue.

    The teams from the Minneapolis years need to be honored properly, currently it's just not good enough.

    And yes, the numbers of the key players of the Minneapolis era should be retired yesterday. But I don't really think a Statue of Mikan is appropriate in Los Angeles. In Minneapolis yes. But not in LA.


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    I am with you RUWorthy  by the way Shaq paid for Mikans Funeral
    DR Jerry could not even honor the guy in death. I wish the would give him a statue but I doubt it..  Foot note Shaq was playing for the Heat at that time.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    Shaq does have his moments where he comes across as a very classy guy. Very immature at times in his career, but he's got a very big heart. I'll take a big heart over some immaturity any time.

    He's always come across as a very generous guy. Loved his line about Mikan as well. “Without No. 99, there is no me". Refreshing to have a player recognise that the league didn't start with Magic, Larry and Michael.




     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    The T Wolves do have a statue of Mikan. Do the T Woves get those 5 banners lol
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    Jerry Buss repeatedly disrespected the Minn Lakers and ignored them. He went as far as to tell people he did not consider their history to be part of his franchise and it was left behind in 'Sota... this when he felt no team would ever catch the Celtics in titles.

    Then... surprise right as LA is closing in on a 3-peat that will get them within 2 titles of the Celtics for first all-time... IF AND ONLY IF THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE MINNESOTA TITLES FROM THE 50'S.... does Buss FINALLY do so

    He is an arrogant coward who slapped George Mikan and everyone else associated with Minneapolis in the face and pretends his club now has 16 WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS

    Technically since they kept the name (unlike say the Sonics) they should be allowed to keep the titles... but Buss was so sketchy and disrspectful in the way he went about it that it should remain forever a stain on the franchise and an asterisk in the record book
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: April 11th, 2002

    That is really cool. Just had a look at it (in between shoving Easter Eggs into my mouth!!) Easter Sunday in Oz, so Happy Easter everyone.


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share