I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

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

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    yeah Seems, that is probably the reason and it makes sense I suppose......I guess I'm wondering why the difference in the case of the Lakers.....the franchise moved but kept the name.....the colors changed and are now purple and gold...the new owner wasn't interested in any of the Minny trophies and the team didn't officially recognize the history for over 40 years.......the NFL Colts moved to Indy but kept the name and the colors.....the NFL Browns moved to Baltimore and changed both the name and the colors....isn't Baltimore the same franchise as the one that played the year before in Cleveland...? ....for the same owner with almost the same roster and coaches...?  I actually don't get why the "franchise" all comes to the "name.....most aren't aware that the Yankee franchise originally started out as the Baltimore Orioles before moving to New York.....and it was years until they were recognized as the Yankees.....it doesn't really matter....but I've always wondered about these things....take care old friend...!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    I have to correct myself....I short changed the LA Lakers......the first time they met the Celtics, who swept them, the Lakers were still in Minneapolis....so the LA entry actually has a Finals record of 11-14 (not 11-15)....just to keep the record straight....
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skins and Heart. Show Skins and Heart's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : I didn't know Elgin Baylor played marbles
    Posted by breaktime[/QUOTE]

    :P

    LOL
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Skins and Heart. Show Skins and Heart's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : I agree about playing for the championship. How about this what if?   What if Minnesota decided to hang 5 banners at their stadium?  It just says Minnesota - World Championship Year ______.   Seems they have a right to say they won some titles don't they?   I think titles belong to cities, not names.
    Posted by lakerfaker[/QUOTE]

    Not a bad idea at all. Would go along nicely with the Mikan statue. No claims to the titles, just banners for what was accomplished by the old Minnesota basketball team. If it was done properly and with class it'd work nicely.

     
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]yeah Seems, that is probably the reason and it makes sense I suppose......I guess I'm wondering why the difference in the case of the Lakers.....the franchise moved but kept the name.....the colors changed and are now purple and gold...the new owner wasn't interested in any of the Minny trophies and the team didn't officially recognize the history for over 40 years.......the NFL Colts moved to Indy but kept the name and the colors.....the NFL Browns moved to Baltimore and changed both the name and the colors....isn't Baltimore the same franchise as the one that played the year before in Cleveland...? ....for the same owner with almost the same roster and coaches...?  I actually don't get why the "franchise" all comes to the "name.....most aren't aware that the Yankee franchise originally started out as the Baltimore Orioles before moving to New York.....and it was years until they were recognized as the Yankees.....it doesn't really matter....but I've always wondered about these things....take care old friend...!
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Duke,

     I enjoy all the back and forth, give and take on this 60 year never ending Celtic-Laker debate. For me I call it a draw.First 30 years I give to the Celts- The last 30 to the lakers. If only the magic existed to set up a round robin featuring the 2 best Celtic teams of the 2 eras, versus the 2 best corresponding Laker teams. You talk about Basketball heaven!!!.
         Here's one vote for the 1985-86 celtics.
       Seems
      
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from GEAUX-TIGRES. Show GEAUX-TIGRES's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]Here is my thought process. 1. They were won in the pre shot clock era so basketball was a completely different game then. 2. They were titles won in another city that still belong to that city. 3. LA doesn't respect them enough to give them each there own banner nor do they retire the numbers of all the famous Minnesoata players so they treat them like they only kind of count anyways.
    Posted by DFURY13[/QUOTE]
    I used to be a Celts' fan as a kid and learned that they had won a number of titles with 8 teams in the entire league. Not much of a challenge when they had nothing but great players. I became a Spurs fan once Navy's Admiral Robinson was drafted by that organization. I do have a legit reason for my change of venue, but not to be disputed on this forum. Stop with the nit picking and whining.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    I agree......Minny displaying the banners....just like LA having a statue of Mikan....these are the two greatest franchise in the history of the league....each fan base roots for their team....call them Franchise 1A and 1B......makes no difference to me in the long run....there is no other sport where this debate is relevant...lets just applaud both franchises and move on shall we....?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]I have to admit that the idea of Minneapolis hanging the banners never occurred to me...I think it's a brilliant idea since is involves professional sports and is part of the city's history....the Lakers can still claim the titles as their own.....win/win situation... as far as having the opportunity to play for the championship....I agree that it is special....second only to winning the title....I never said it wasn't important as one of our Laker fans seems to suggest all the time.....this whole issue of which franchise is the greatest began when Hollinger wrote his article proclaiming the Lakers as the best....then the battle began and continues to rage on.....there are so many different "takes" on this one.....mine has always been the concept of comparing the teams head to head in the most important categories when ranking teams (just as they do in boxing....Ali/Frasier...Hagler/Hearns/Leonard....etc) regular season record head to head: Celtics 153 (.554) Lakers 123 (.446) Finals results: Celtics 9 (.750) Lakers 3 (.250) World Champions: Celtics 17 Lakers 16 Modern (shot clock era): Boston Celtics 17 Los Angeles Lakers 11 Finals winning percentage: Celtics 17-4 (.809) Lakers 16-15 (.516).......since moving to Los Angeles the record is 11-15 (.423) I rest my case......in my opinion this is the most relevant way to judge two teams who's fans are claiming the #1 ranking....I realize many Laker fans don't see it that way.....ok by me....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke, you really have to rest your case. Your attempt to use something subjective, i.e. only counting what happens when reaching the finals, head to head, etc. are just that, coming up with some ARBITRARY criteria to boost your case. It's no different than saying that

    - you winning the conference doesn't count as credit (that's how we got the 15 in 16-15)
    - our missing the playoff counts as credit (that's how you got the low number of final failures, the 4 in the 17-4, it's as if your team only played 21 seasons in the NBA)

    See, 17-4 is better looking than 16-15. 9-3 is better than 3-9. This is called cherry-picking facts to argue.

    FACT: 16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16

    No way you can whitewash it. But you can still try to use your arbitrary criteria to argue. You only count records when the teams reach the finals, head to head, etc.




     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : Nice research, even if you are a Laker fan. The biggest discrepancy in style of play and the rules of the game CLEARLY is between pre and post shot clock era basketball. 1954 was way different from 1964 as opposed to 1964 from now. But it makes the most sense to me to seperate the modern NBA by the ABA-NBA merger of 1976. That added a lot more teams, bigger postseason and was just a few years before Magic/Bird entered and the tv era really took off. If that is the case it is 10-4 Lakers. But of course, the NBA has not done that, teams around in the 50's can still claim their titles. They won't be robbed of them. But I am fine if the Los Angeles Lakers want to claim the title of greatest franchise in the 'modern' NBA but the Celtics can claim the title of GREATEST FRANCHISE IN THE HISTORY OF THE NBA and remain #1 on any greatest list... even if LA is 10-4 in the last 30 years, the rediculous stetch by their franchise to claim the 5 pre-shot clock era Minny titles their own organization takes dumps on... just to get the total to 17-16 good guys... means Boston remians #1.
    Posted by rameakap[/QUOTE]

    Boston #1? only if you count # titles and ignore everything else. But the game is not played that way, not even by your own cohorts, let alone the facts.

    - we have to count more than # championships, according to your cohort RedRust (banned, now using his old account HedleyLamar), that's why Red is better than Phil by his logic.
    - the Steelers ruled the NFL, despite trailing the Packers in # championships, 6-13, according to your cohort DoctorCO. He only counted an era that matters, the Super Bowl era.

    Now get to the facts. Lakers are the #1 franchise in many people's opinion. In other words, it's not only your Celtics' random criteria: "we only count titles" that matters.

    For the sake of argument, I ignore the ranting and ravings from discussion forums, plus the media from LA or from Boston. National media, OK.

    ESPN - Lakers
    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro

    NBA.com - Lakers
    http://www.nba.com/hoop/The_Laker_Legacy-316267-2193.html

    NBC Sports - Lakers
    http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/nba-playoffs-you-cant-tarnish-the-lakers-franchise-legacy-but-their-team-sure-tried/related

    "Nothing can tarnish the legacy of the Lakers, arguably the greatest franchise in the NBA, in all of sports."

    And let's look at the facts:
    16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16

    All other rounds are about the same except two:

    Losing finalist: Lakers 15 Celtics 4 (+11)
    Missing playoffs: Lakers 5 Celtics 16 (-11)

    Just this overall achievement is enough to use FACTS to kill your "we are the greatest franchise in NBA history".

    "Tell Kobe that making the playoffs is his goal for the season", you argue?

    Nope, making the playoffs is not the goal of Kobe, but don't use this absurd logic. In this "more than half the teams make the playoffs" system, making the playoffs is no big deal, but because of that, its complement, MISSING THE PLAYOFFS, is the ultimate shame, especially missing it for 6 seasons consecutively and having a 9-peat of not winning a playoff series (either miss the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round).

    So, it's not as simple as you think, "we just count 17 vs 16", is it?



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

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    although I have some folks on ignore, I can still see the argument continues....lets consider strength of conference once again.....

    The Lakers have been in the most finals in league history....they also have the most losses in league history.....they have come out of the Western Conference  more often than any other team....but, compare a few statistics....

    when the Lakers make it to the Finals, they are 16-15 (.516).....the LA Lakers are actually 11-14 (.458)

    when the Celtics make it to the finals they dominate...(17-4 .809).......when the Celtics meet the Lakers they also dominate (9-3 .750)

    since the "modern era" (shot clock) began in '54/'55 here is how the conferences have fared during the decades:

    '50's East   4 West 1
    '60's East 10 West 0
    '70's East   5 West 5
    '80's East   5 West 5

    from the Russell era through the Bird/Magic era the East held a 24-11 advantage

    '90's East   7 West 3....now the Jordan era brings it to East 24-West 11

    the strength shifted beginning in 2000 and the West has enjoyed an advantage...but this does say something historically about the strength of each conference, the relevant degree of difficulty in reaching the finals, and the end result....

    for the first five decades, since the advent of the shot clock, the East was clearly the dominant conference...the Lakers even went to the Western Finals three years in a row while posting a losing regular season record......(Boston swept them in the Finals in '59).....in conclusion, I feel that the only true means of comparison is based on head to head competition along with the overall success of each team in the finals....Boston clearly wins both..
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    for those that don't appreciate relatively lengthy posts such as the one I posted earlier, suffice it to say this.... historically, the Los Angeles Lakers have had a much easier time getting through the competition they have faced in their conference.....however, once they meet the Eastern entry, they do not fare as well (losing record).

    Boston faced stiffer competition during their glory years in my opinion....but fared much better upon reaching the Finals....especially when facing the Lakers....my opinion.....not everyone will agree....no problem...
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]although I have some folks on ignore, I can still see the argument continues....lets consider strength of conference once again..... The Lakers have been in the most finals in league history....they also have the most losses in league history.....they have come out of the Western Conference  more often than any other team....but, compare a few statistics.... when the Lakers make it to the Finals, they are 16-15 (.516).....the LA Lakers are actually 11-14 (.458) when the Celtics make it to the finals they dominate...(17-4 .809).......when the Celtics meet the Lakers they also dominate (9-3 .750) since the "modern era" (shot clock) began in '54/'55 here is how the conferences have fared during the decades: '50's East   4 West 1 '60's East 10 West 0 '70's East   5 West 5 '80's East   5 West 5 from the Russell era through the Bird/Magic era the East held a 24-11 advantage '90's East   7 West 3....now the Jordan era brings it to East 24-West 11 the strength shifted beginning in 2000 and the West has enjoyed an advantage...but this does say something historically about the strength of each conference, the relevant degree of difficulty in reaching the finals, and the end result.... for the first five decades, since the advent of the shot clock, the East was clearly the dominant conference...the Lakers even went to the Western Finals three years in a row while posting a losing regular season record......(Boston swept them in the Finals in '59).....in conclusion, I feel that the only true means of comparison is based on head to head competition along with the overall success of each team in the finals....Boston clearly wins both..
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Ummm.... This conference strength argument doesn't work. You can save it for lunch.

    You are advocating a conference strength argument for a team that missed the playoffs 16 times? So the Celtics missed the playoffs because the conference is strong? what a laugh!!!

    Besides, when have the NBA recognized conference strength? I see, for example, their playoff bonus money is distributed based on which round you reached, not based on whether the west is weak or not. Ditto for their draft order. The losing finalists picked 2nd, not according to some arbitrary order based on your subjective perception of conference strength.

    And this listing of champions from which conference is laughable. That's the eastern conference champs is better than the western conference champs. Do you think that's the relative merits of the respective conference from top to bottom?

    You sure can put me on ignore, knowing that your argument will be picked apart by me. Not directly arguing with me is a smart move...

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE] since the "modern era" (shot clock) began in '54/'55 here is how the conferences have fared during the decades: '50's East   4 West 1 '60's East 10 West 0 '70's East   5 West 5 '80's East   5 West 5 from the Russell era through the Bird/Magic era the East held a 24-11 advantage '90's East   7 West 3....now the Jordan era brings it to East 24-West 11 the strength shifted beginning in 2000 and the West has enjoyed an advantage...but this does say something historically about the strength of each conference, the relevant degree of difficulty in reaching the finals, and the end result....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    I see something very dishonest here, just to make an argument to boost the Celtics. No wonder Duke has to put me on "ignore". He dared not face the harsh reality.

    1) an arbitrary definition of "Modern era", simply to discard the Minneapolis Lakers' dynasty era. "Modern era" has many definitions, but most are defined around the ABA-NBA merger or the 3-point shot era, not the 1954-55 shot clock era...

    2) an illogical argument to use the Celtics' championships to define the east as "tougher", as an justification of the Celtics facing "tougher opposition". In other words, the east is tough due to the Celtics' success, i.e. the Celtics failed to make more finals due to the Celtics' success. Funny, huh?

    The truth is, the LAKERS FACED TOUGHER OPPOSITIONS THAN THE CELTICS DID!!!! The Lakers' path to the finals had been blocked by the eventual champs more than the Celtics had.

    Take away all the Celtics and Lakers championships, there had been 33 championships won by various teams: East won 18, West won 15, not your idea of east tougher than the west.

    But the funny thing is this. Among these 33 championships, who got short-changed?

    Celtics got short changed 4 times, i.e. lost to the eventual champs in the conference playoffs:

    1955 lost to the Nationals in the Division finals
    1967 lost to the 76ers in the Division finals
    1973 lost to the Knicks in the Conference finals
    1989 lost (as #8 seed) to the Pistons in the 1st round

    On the other hand, the Lakers lost to the eventual champs 7 times:
    1951 lost to the Royals in the Division Finals
    1971 lost to the Bucks in the Conf finals
    1977 lost to the Blazers in the Conf finals
    1979 lost to the Sonics in the Conf semi
    1999 lost to the Spurs in the Conf semi
    2003 lost to the Spurs in the Conf semi
    2011 lost to the Mavericks in the Conf semi

    In other words, if you want to use the "tougher opponent" argument, the Lakers are the victim here, not the Celtics.

    Why is that? simple, the Bulls were dominant in the 90s, what does that have to do with the Celtics not making the finals? The Celtics never once met the Bulls in those years. They were aweful to begin with. The Knicks, the Cavs, the Heat could all say that they were unlucky. They got blocked by a great team multiple times. The Celtics can't say that.




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

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]for those that don't appreciate relatively lengthy posts such as the one I posted earlier, suffice it to say this.... historically, the Los Angeles Lakers have had a much easier time getting through the competition they have faced in their conference.....however, once they meet the Eastern entry, they do not fare as well (losing record). Boston faced stiffer competition during their glory years in my opinion....but fared much better upon reaching the Finals....especially when facing the Lakers....my opinion.....not everyone will agree....no problem...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke - the guy never gives up - I produced FOUR articles proving my point, including a direct quote from Kupcake, and he stills thinks he won!!  Even lakers fan know that the only reason Gasol was traded for was that koME whined, and Bynum was hurt.  So............if you don't want this lunactic stalking you for two years, you should do what I have done:

    Posts from MajicMVP are hidden!!!  Thanks, Duke!!!
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    I did the same thing weeks ago hedley......I do see some of the comments when someone does a "cut & paste".....but I no longer read any of the posts....they are just a rehash of the same thing over and over.....

    the Celts are 153-123 all time in the regular season (.554 to .445)
    the Celts are 43-31 in the Finals (.581 to .418)
    the Celts are 9-3 vs the Lakers in the Finals (.750 to .250)
    the Celts have a winning percentage of .809 to the Lakers.516 (LA Lakers .440)
    the Celts have more Hall of Famers
    the Celts were the first team to draft a black player
    the Celts were the first team to field an all black starting five
    the Celts were the first team in American major sports to hire a black head coach
    the Celts winningest coach has won 9 championships (Lakers best has 5)
    the Celts winningest player has 11 rings (Lakers best has 5)

    yet, because the Lakers came out of their conference more often than the Celts (and still trail in titles) this somehow makes the Lakers #1 in his mind......priceless!!!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from rameakap. Show rameakap's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : Boston #1? only if you count # titles and ignore everything else. But the game is not played that way, not even by your own cohorts, let alone the facts. - we have to count more than # championships, according to your cohort RedRust (banned, now using his old account HedleyLamar), that's why Red is better than Phil by his logic. - the Steelers ruled the NFL, despite trailing the Packers in # championships, 6-13, according to your cohort DoctorCO. He only counted an era that matters, the Super Bowl era. Now get to the facts. Lakers are the #1 franchise in many people's opinion. In other words, it's not only your Celtics' random criteria: "we only count titles" that matters. For the sake of argument, I ignore the ranting and ravings from discussion forums, plus the media from LA or from Boston. National media, OK. ESPN - Lakers http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2009/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings-Intro NBA.com - Lakers http://www.nba.com/hoop/The_Laker_Legacy-316267-2193.html NBC Sports - Lakers http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/nba-playoffs-you-cant-tarnish-the-lakers-franchise-legacy-but-their-team-sure-tried/related "Nothing can tarnish the legacy of the Lakers, arguably the greatest franchise in the NBA, in all of sports." And let's look at the facts: 16-15-9-11-7-5 vs 17-4-11-11-6-16 All other rounds are about the same except two: Losing finalist: Lakers 15 Celtics 4 (+11) Missing playoffs: Lakers 5 Celtics 16 (-11) Just this overall achievement is enough to use FACTS to kill your "we are the greatest franchise in NBA history". "Tell Kobe that making the playoffs is his goal for the season", you argue? Nope, making the playoffs is not the goal of Kobe, but don't use this absurd logic. In this "more than half the teams make the playoffs" system, making the playoffs is no big deal, but because of that, its complement, MISSING THE PLAYOFFS, is the ultimate shame, especially missing it for 6 seasons consecutively and having a 9-peat of not winning a playoff series (either miss the playoffs or getting bounced in the first round). So, it's not as simple as you think, "we just count 17 vs 16", is it?
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Sorry I will concede that the modern NBA started with the merger but no way you take away titles from the 50's and 60's... so Boston remains #1 until the Lakers get #17.

    The best franchise ever is the one that has the most titles, not the one that ahs the best record in the last _______ amount of years.

    The fact that FIVE of LA's titles they claim are done so in such a cheap and dishonest way makes me feel the gap between 17-16 is truly greater than the one it is.... despite LA's sizeable gap in titles between say 1972 and now (11-6)
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from jgallag1. Show jgallag1's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    So By that Logic, in the NFL, The Rams should have a different name, while the Browns should be the Rams...While any team that's based in LA should have been renamed the Chargers...The Steelers should still be called the Pirates, And the Pats should have taken up the Braves mantle after the Redskins original team in Boston.

    Just to put it to the NBA, Chicago is the stags, not the iconic Bulls...Cleveland is no longer the Cavs, but the Rebels...Detroit is the Falcons...Toronto is the Huskies, not the Raptors...The Bullets and Wizards never happened, only the Capitols...The Bullets would have been a Baltimore name only, and the Pistons and Warrior Monikers would have been left in Ft. Wayne and Philly respectively. That's just with the original 17 teams! A team is still thatt team, no matter where it moves, and their name is still their name...just like their players, and just like their championships. You're trying to tell me the T-wolves should consider those championships theirs just because they play in that city now? I don't think so.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]So By that Logic, in the NFL, The Rams should have a different name, while the Browns should be the Rams...While any team that's based in LA should have been renamed the Chargers...The Steelers should still be called the Pirates, And the Pats should have taken up the Braves mantle after the Redskins original team in Boston. Just to put it to the NBA, Chicago is the stags, not the iconic Bulls...Cleveland is no longer the Cavs, but the Rebels...Detroit is the Falcons...Toronto is the Huskies, not the Raptors...The Bullets and Wizards never happened, only the Capitols...The Bullets would have been a Baltimore name only, and the Pistons and Warrior Monikers would have been left in Ft. Wayne and Philly respectively. That's just with the original 17 teams! A team is still thatt team, no matter where it moves, and their name is still their name...just like their players, and just like their championships. You're trying to tell me the T-wolves should consider those championships theirs just because they play in that city now? I don't think so.
    Posted by jgallag1[/QUOTE]

    What logic - here is a FACT - when Jack Kent Cooke bought the team from MN and brought them to LA, he said he wanted NOTHING to do with the MN lakers - he wanted his own team.
    FACT - When Buss bought the team, it took him about 20 years to "recognize" the titles with a one-nighter. There are still no banners or retired numbers in the rafters. Many feel he only did this to get 5 titles closer to the Celtics!!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    Bingo...!!!!  ....we have a winner....!!  thank you Hedley.....
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : What logic - here is a FACT - when Jack Kent Cooke bought the team from MN and brought them to LA, he said he wanted NOTHING to do with the MN lakers - he wanted his own team. FACT - When Buss bought the team, it took him about 20 years to "recognize" the titles with a one-nighter. There are still no banners or retired numbers in the rafters. Many feel he only did this to get 5 titles closer to the Celtics!!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Fact :   Jack Kent Cooke bought the team in 1965 . The team move here in 1960

    Please get your Facts right

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Lakers#1959.E2.80.931968:_Move_to_Los_Angeles_and_Celtics_rivalry
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : Fact :   Jack Kent Cooke bought the team in 1965 . The team move here in 1960 Please get your Facts right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Lakers#1959.E2.80.931968:_Move_to_Los_Angeles_and_Celtics_rivalry
    Posted by dirty52[/QUOTE]


    Even if he didn't bring the team here, the FACT is he wanted nothing to do with the MN titles.  Please try to stay on topic!!!!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from dirty52. Show dirty52's posts

    Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk

    In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: I think the Lakers 5 minnesota Titles should have an asterisk : Even if he didn't bring the team here, the FACT is he wanted nothing to do with the MN titles.  Please try to stay on topic!!!!!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Please try to get your facts straight
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share