posted at 7/25/2010 3:26 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Celtics/Lakers
In the 2000s the Lakers have gone to the NBA finals 7 out of 10 & won 5 championships. They have made it to the finals the past 3 times. The franchise has proven its worth throughout this era. The Celtics have been irrelevant, winning 1 title. Celtic fans can continue to go back to ancient history, when there were few teams & the league was in its infancy, to claim supremacy. Who the hell remembers or cares? Only some Boston fans. Does anyone believe that Bill Russell would have won 9 titles throughout the 2000s? Russell would have been too small to even play center. I'll give you Boston this. Take the 5 greatest Laker players in their prime and put them up against the 5 greatest Celtic players and even include benches, if you want. The Lakers would have crushed the Celtics. :-) It would have been a laugher series. In a 7 game series, the Lakers would have swept the Celtics.
Posted by rsalas67m
Get out of here, troll, your services are no longer needed. AND the NBA expanded to 9 teams in 1966, do your research!!
posted at 7/25/2010 4:43 PM EDT
yet this guy probably still claims the Lakers are only one title behind because he also claims the 5 won in Minny years before we even won our first title....again, pot calling the kettle black...some fans said Cousy would never have made it in today's game.....they were wrong....he had a hall of fame career....his name is John Stockton....as for Russ....believe me, he held his own against Wilt....don't think we wouldn't have done it today....the difference in players?...today they are bigger based on weight training....also not as good at the game of basketball as it was played before they stopped calling traveling, palming, up and down, etc....Russ would've hit the weight room and probably played at 240-250....would still have the 7 foot wingspan and the incredible leaping ability...
posted at 7/26/2010 10:51 AM EDT
The next Laker fan that comes over here to tell us that the Celtic titles from the60's are irrelevant.....I wonder if he/she also considers the first five Laker titles in the same discussion....also, the greatest run in Dodger history is arguably from 1947 to 1959....the Dodgers went to the World Series seven times in thirteen years, winning twice...a few years later they went to the Series three times in four years winning twice......I guess that 20 year run of ten trips to the big dance doesn't count for anything either huh? Well, as a long time Dodger fan who is looking at 22 years without a title.....they count to me!
posted at 7/26/2010 2:37 PM EDT
All the titles count. Get these asterisks out of here. If titles were so easy to win in the 60's, then why weren't the Lakers winning them instead?
posted at 7/26/2010 3:54 PM EDT
Hi buddy.....haven't seen you post in a few days....it's always refreshing to have intelligent conversations...you and I are rivals as far as teams go yet we can talk all day it seems....when we need to "agree to disagree"....we just do it.....funny how easy it is huh?
This post has been removed.
posted at 7/27/2010 8:58 AM EDT
Duke - always good banter. I mentioned a while ago that my parents are both huge Celtics fans, so I can't understand the logic of judging a person by the team they support. in my experience, 98% of a team's fan base comes from the city/state they play in...and I don't think it's coincidence. So people will be who they are. You're obviously a reasonable and intelligent guy, so I think it's easy for most people to have good dialogues with you. There are great fans on both sides of the fence who just like talking shop.
damfuno - you're right, LA doesn't shy away from being one of the top (if not the top) spenders in the league. I'm going to disagree with the Yankees comparison though, as LA isn't head and shoulders above the competition. I believe LA was something like $6 million over the next highest team, which I believe was Boston. Whereas the Yankees were $40 million over the next highest team (Boston again). While the Lakers did outspend Boston, it wasn't a grotesque amount, like the Yankees will spend. They were the head of the pack, yes, but they were still in the pack. With NY, they're not even close.
But going back to your point - LA absolutely spends top dollar. I don't think Boston's done this year...and I wouldn't be surprised if they end up within a few million of LA's total payroll. Which they need to at this point, to keep up with other team's offseason moves (ahem, Heat). Who knows, maybe they'll land Shaq...
posted at 7/27/2010 9:28 AM EDT
Thanks for the kind words my friend.....it is always good talking with you...I agree that the Lakers are willing to do whatever it takes to stay competitive...and I wish Celtic management followed suit....also, the comparison with the Yankees, as you point out, is not apples to apples...the Yankees completely dominate the MLB salary structure....the Lakers don't blindly go into free agency every year with the highest bid to the most expensive free agents....New York does every single year....take care buddy!
This post has been removed.