Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    majjic mvp,

    I guess you dont know the english language..

    keep putting your spin on the nfl boy....

    plus what PART OF THE LAKERS LEFT THE NBL that you dont understand...

    THEY LEFT..THEY CANT BRING THE TITLE WITH THEM AND CALL IT A NBA TITLE..........

    YOU really are slow....

    Then ask someone on the board...

    WHEN THE NBA WEBSITE SAYS THE LAKERS have 16...ill believe them.......
    THE NBA says the lakers have 16...

    What does one person or you or I mean to the nba......NBA MAKES POLICY..
    NOT US.....

    After the 1947–48 season, Mikan's Lakers and three other NBL clubs left to join the Basketball Association of America (Rochester, Fort Wayne, and Indianapolis). Stripped of its best teams and prime gate attraction, the NBL lasted only one more season, the Anderson Duffey Packers winning the league's last championship before six of its members were absorbed by the BAA, which changed its name to the National Basketball Association.

    THEY LEFT THE LEAGUE.....

    a other leagues titles dont count....

    what your saying is

    kobe can count his oylimpic titles as nba titles.....

    WE ALL KNOW THATS FALse...BUT THATS WHAT YOUR SAYING WHEN YOU SAY THE LAKERS HAVE 17..

    THEY LEFT THE LEAGUE!!!!

    LEFT....

    AND FOR GOOD MESURE...
    DEFINITION ON MERGER ::::::  

    Merger

    What Does It Mean?
    What Does Merger Mean?
    The combining of two or more companies, generally by offering the stockholders of one www.investopedia.com/terms/m/merger.asp#" class="itxtrst itxtrsta itxthook">company securities in the acquiring company in exchange for the surrender of their stock.
    Investopedia Says
    Investopedia explains Merger
    Basically, when two companies become one. This decision is usually mutual between both firms

    Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/merger.asp#ixzz1Wup76UHR

    SO YOUR TELLING ME YOU KNOW THE REAL MEANIING OF A MERGER
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Back to back in boston:

    1986, 2008!

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Laker nation 32,

    17-16................................................................................

    ADVANTAGE...CELTICS..........

    THATS WHAT HISTORY SAYS......

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:

    Posted by 21st


    Great picture!!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Great picture!!
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]

    Thank you!




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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Great ride, Kobe.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise




    "I had a hard night!"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    What picture you like best, this?

    Or this?

    Thanks for playing.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise


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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]Majjic nvp, Super Bowl Championship (1966 – present) (The creation of Super Bowl was the first sign of AFL-NFL merger. The first four Super Bowls served as intra-league championship games because of these intra-league championship games this created some confusion amongst football fans that there was an special World Championship series in the pre-merger era. After the merger, the Super Bowl became the NFL's championship game. Since there is this has . The number in the parentheses is the total number of Super Bowl championships and the bolded number in parentheses is the total number of league championships.)   ANSWER THAT THEN.........................[/QUOTE]

    You said it yourself: the total number of league championships, which also includes the number of SB championships.

    You are hooked.

    [QUOTE]
     After the merger, the Super Bowl became the NFL's championship game. Since there is this has ........ SO WHAT DOES THE ABOVE MEAN!!!!!!! ALL FROM WIKI........... AND... ANSWER THIS...PS: YOUR OWNED!!
    [/QUOTE]
    So you said it "AFTER the merger". What do you say about the NFL BEFORE the merger. Did it exist or not? I know you dare not answer.

    You are hooked.

    [QUOTE]
     After the merger the AFL-NFL Championship games were replaced/retooled as/with AFC Championship game and NFC Championship game .' Since these AFL-NFL Championships are generally not included in overall World Championship/league Championship list, because of this there are no number given in parentheses counting them.) . Season League Winning Team Score OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Posted by DoctorCO[/QUOTE]

    Yep, that's the NFC/AFC championships from 1970 on. They aren't counted as NFC championships. What about the NFL championships before the merger? you dare not answer?

    You are hooked.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]majjic mvp, I guess you dont know the english language.. keep putting your spin on the nfl boy.... [/QUOTE]
    NFL is on my side, not yours, you keep quoting the NFL yet have NO evidence, I repeat, NO evidence, that the NFL discard the pre-merger championships.

    You have no way to refute the Packers' 13 championships, true or false?

    But knowing you, you won't answer this post. You'll keep quoting Wiki that the NFL didn't count the NFC Championship games AFTER the merger. I guess not only you don't understand English, you don't even understand the argument, because you keep quoting stuff to support my claim.

    [QUOTE]plus what PART OF THE LAKERS LEFT THE NBL that you dont understand... THEY LEFT..THEY CANT BRING THE TITLE WITH THEM AND CALL IT A NBA TITLE.......... [/QUOTE]
    And which part of Fierce's post that you don't understand? You should ask him he counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. Go to the source. I am just the messenger.

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aSportsForum%3a734e2bc9-e1bc-49d6-8355-64f9a8500246Discussion%3a629a8a2b-85aa-48d5-92e7-2b7b97f9afef&plckCurrentPage=2

    Franchise History:

    Season 1947-48: Minneapolis Lakers (NBL)


    Of course you have no guts to ask him. Your cohort screwed up in this accounting. You have no way to defend him.


    [QUOTE]
    YOU really are slow.... [/QUOTE]
    You really are gutless.

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : I tell all the other people, except you, that the Lakers have 16 NBA CHAMPIONSHIPS. But when it comes to you, I tell you the Lakers have 17 championships because you believe me. Is it my fault that you believe everything that I say? [/QUOTE]
    I don't have to believe you. It's a FACT that you counted the Lakers' 1947-48 NBL season. Belief is irrelevant. Do you BELIEVE that 1+1=2?

    Once you counted that season, you are cooked.

    [QUOTE]Why don't you tell me how many NBA championships the Lakers really have? [/QUOTE]
    Well, according to your action (counting the 1947-48 season), how many do the Lakers have? You dare to tell us?



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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]The NBA in the 1960s was a bush league? If so how come the Lakers didn't win one single NBA Finals from 1960 to 1969? The Lakers went 0-6 in the Finals in the 60s. That's so pathetic! [/QUOTE]
    Going 0-6 in the finals is pathetic?

    The Celtics missed the playoffs in 6 consecutive seasons in the 90s/00s. What do you call it? Do you think going 0-6 in the finals (i.e. 6 conference championships) is worse than missing the playoffs 6 successive seasons?

    You folks are really hiding your heads in the sand. You think by missing the playoffs in 6 consecutive seasons, the Celtics actually didn't participate in the NBA?


    [QUOTE]The only NBA team to have a losing record against 4 NBA teams in the Finals? Answer: Lakers have losing records to NY, Boston, Chicago, and Detroit in the Finals. The only NBA team to have lost not only 5 times but 15 times in the Finals? Answer: Lakers. Thanks for playing. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Losing 15 times in the finals, as compared to missing the playoffs 16 times? Which one do you prefer? Of course you'll say missing the playoffs 16 times, because you think by missing the playoffs, people would not remember that the Celtics actually failed much harder in the process. Missing the playoffs should be something special to you folks, yes?


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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]Al Gore may have won the popular vote in 2000, but did he become president? The Lakers may be more popular than the Celtics, but does that mean the Lakers are the best team in NBA history? In case you trolls didn't know, the NBA started counting championships in 1947, not 1980. And it doesn't hurt if I say the Lakers have 17 championships and 1 idiotic troll believes me. Ha Ha 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    In case you trolls didn't know

    1) Fierce counted the 1947-48 NBL season for the Lakers.
    2) DoctorCO counted only certain # of championships, because that's what MATTERS, i.e. the NFL before the SB era didn't matter. That's why the Steelers rule the NFL with only 6 championships during the SB era.
    3) RedRust introduced the HUMAN ELEMENT into counting championships, thus Red's 9 is better than Phil's 11.

    So, it's not that simple of counting 17 and 16. You Celtic fans are really innovative when counting championships...


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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]Majic, I still don't understand why you play down the Celtic titles of the '60's yet you cling to the 5 titles of the early '50's......talk about stone age....the game that was played before the shot clock nearly destroyed the league.....I've made several references to this time in league history and shown specific examples of just how "bush" the league was back then....you don't respond....I am not trying to match wits with you....I think we can have some intelligent back and forth conversations...what do you think....?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Your reference to shot clock is meaningless. As I said, I don't care how the game was played. I care about whether the league was a competitive league, a big-time operation, rather than a farm league, a bush league.

    And I've been saying all along, the Lakers' lead is 10-6 (and the '6' isn't the Celtics). So you folks should feel good that as long as the Celtics don't finish 2nd, you are not a loser...





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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : I also provided two links from youtube where ESPN analysts said the following: "lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt." "Gasol was acquired to play CENTER for the rest of the year. Also never said anything about 1st place, I said they were in second place in the Division behind Phoenix, and I defy you to prove it otherwise. Where is YOUR proof that I'm wrong? [/QUOTE]
    Umm.... can't resist again...

    1) Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt does not mean they wouldn't do it even if Bynum wasn't hurt.

    2) Yep, because Bynum got hurt. Otherwise he would have played PF. This fact itself wasn't proof that they wouldn't have got Gasol had Bynum not injured.

    And by saying that the Lakers were in 2nd place, that's another attempt to mislead. Why would a 6th seed team (albeit 2nd place in the Division) not trying to improve themselves given the wrapped gift? Do you think the NBA use division playoffs like the old NHL (Patrick, Adams, Norris, Smythe)? instead of seeding the conference teams 1 thru' 8?

    So what about 2nd place in the Division? what relevance did it have that the Lakers wouldn't have traded for Gasol?


    [QUOTE]
     You don't have any, and no one will take you seriously until you show some...............[/QUOTE]
    And you have any?

    because they are 2nd place in the division while 6th seed in the conference?

    because the Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt == the Lakers didn't have to do anything had Bynum not hurt?

    You really think spouting some garbage automatically constitute PROOF? first you have to pass a logic class.
    [QUOTE] WHEN you refute me with links, I will respond again.  Until then, this is game, set and match to ME...........no Bynum injury = no trade for Gasol.
    Posted by Red-16Russ-11[/QUOTE]
    I'll worry about after you show us when

    1) when the NBA use division playoffs instead of conference playoffs
    2) how they had to do something once Bynum got injured == they didn't have to do anything had Bynum not injured
    3) they acquired Gasol to play center == they wouldn't have acquired him to play PF had Bynum not injured...

    I don't have to respond with links. Your arguments are too easy.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MajicMVP. Show MajicMVP's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]Laker nation 32, 17-16................................................................................ ADVANTAGE...CELTICS.......... THATS WHAT HISTORY SAYS......
    Posted by DoctorCO[/QUOTE]

    Red 9, Phil 11

    Advantage Red according to your friend RedRust. Go figure, or ask RedRust...

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

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    Majic, your main point in this discussion seems to be that the Lakers have gone to the finals more often....the problem in your scenario is that these teams played in different conferences...they didn't play each other to determine which team got to the finals....the East has historically been the stronger conference.....therefore there is no way to compare both teams each year to determine the better team....other than the regular season record on a year by year basis....Boston has a nice lead in that department....

    also, you say that you aren't concerned about the pre shot clock era because it was a competitive pro league.....you do know that the lane was 3 feet wide right? ....Big George could virtually stand under the basket (actually within 18 inches from either side of the rim)....he got the ball in low and scored..he was the dominant big man at the time....to try to prevent this teams could virtually "stall" for minutes on end.....this is why teams could score 18 points and win....this is also why a total of six shots could be taken during six overtimes......the league finally widened the lane to make it more competitive and then had to add the shot clock to save the game....big George could no longer play and retired at 31....the Lakers would go almost 20 years before winning a title under the new rules that brought in the modern NBA...

    when all is said and done all we really have is Boston vs Minneapolis/Los Angeles...you can really only compare them head to head to determine the better team (unlike the Yankees and Red Sox who historically had to beat one another each year to get to the big show)....

    and regular season/playoffs......take your pick....the Celtics win both match ups and it isn't close...


     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Umm.... can't resist again... 1) Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt does not mean they wouldn't do it even if Bynum wasn't hurt. 2) Yep, because Bynum got hurt. Otherwise he would have played PF. This fact itself wasn't proof that they wouldn't have got Gasol had Bynum not injured. And by saying that the Lakers were in 2nd place, that's another attempt to mislead. Why would a 6th seed team (albeit 2nd place in the Division) not trying to improve themselves given the wrapped gift? Do you think the NBA use division playoffs like the old NHL (Patrick, Adams, Norris, Smythe)? instead of seeding the conference teams 1 thru' 8? So what about 2nd place in the Division? what relevance did it have that the Lakers wouldn't have traded for Gasol? And you have any? because they are 2nd place in the division while 6th seed in the conference? because the Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt == the Lakers didn't have to do anything had Bynum not hurt? You really think spouting some garbage automatically constitute PROOF? first you have to pass a logic class. I'll worry about after you show us when 1) when the NBA use division playoffs instead of conference playoffs 2) how they had to do something once Bynum got injured == they didn't have to do anything had Bynum not injured 3) they acquired Gasol to play center == they wouldn't have acquired him to play PF had Bynum not injured... I don't have to respond with links. Your arguments are too easy.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Got links, research - your opinion means nothing!!  As you have no proof, this is game, set and match for me - your speculation bores me - show me a link!!  I've given you two - one of them twice - "Gasol was brought in to replace Kwame Brown."  (a center).  Whether they planned to use him in 2009 at PF is (and understand this very carefully) NOT RELEVANT to this discussion.  He was acquired in 2008 to play CENTER in 2008 - that was, is and always will be my point - which I have proven - no one cares what you think until you supply DATA to back up your opinions!!!!!!!!!!
    Bye!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Funny, didn't you say you put me in "ignore". You don't want to argue with me? But knowing you, I know you can't resist the therapy... You can do a string search on the browser, can't you? It's a simple operation that anyone who surf the Web knows. So you lie by saying 'Doesen't say "bush league" or "Golden era" anywhere in either article.' http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121101705.html "But make no mistake: The '80s, when Bird and Magic ruled, were the NBA's golden era ." http://hoopspeak.com/2011/03/larry-and-magic-what-might-have-been-might-have-been-bad/ "In Ryan DeGama’s contribution to HoopSpeak’s Basketball Culture 101 series, he discusses the notion of Bird-Magic as a golden era for the NBA." You should know I found out those articles by google search. You obviously have no clue what google search is about. Maybe it's time for you to take some introductory computer classes. I know they have that for senior citizens...
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Doesn't say "bush league" anywhere.  And "golden era" in the article refers to when it took off monetarily.  The way YOU defined "golden era" is the LEAGUE wasn't relevant until Bird/Magic.  That is NOT what the article says...........and I've read similar things about Wilt vs Russell - another rivalry for the ages.  "Golden era" means all the games meant something, were meaningful, players got paid more, and more people started watching.  Doesn't mean that the league was irrelevant before that - sorry, you lose.......again!!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise

    In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Lakers universally acclaimed as the NBA'S greatest franchise : Umm.... can't resist again... 1) Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt does not mean they wouldn't do it even if Bynum wasn't hurt. 2) Yep, because Bynum got hurt. Otherwise he would have played PF. This fact itself wasn't proof that they wouldn't have got Gasol had Bynum not injured. And by saying that the Lakers were in 2nd place, that's another attempt to mislead. Why would a 6th seed team (albeit 2nd place in the Division) not trying to improve themselves given the wrapped gift? Do you think the NBA use division playoffs like the old NHL (Patrick, Adams, Norris, Smythe)? instead of seeding the conference teams 1 thru' 8? So what about 2nd place in the Division? what relevance did it have that the Lakers wouldn't have traded for Gasol? And you have any? because they are 2nd place in the division while 6th seed in the conference? because the Lakers had to do something once Bynum got hurt == the Lakers didn't have to do anything had Bynum not hurt? You really think spouting some garbage automatically constitute PROOF? first you have to pass a logic class. I'll worry about after you show us when 1) when the NBA use division playoffs instead of conference playoffs 2) how they had to do something once Bynum got injured == they didn't have to do anything had Bynum not injured 3) they acquired Gasol to play center == they wouldn't have acquired him to play PF had Bynum not injured... I don't have to respond with links. Your arguments are too easy.
    Posted by MajicMVP[/QUOTE]

    Did that - and who is US?  The only person here doubting me is you - so no one!!
     
  24. This post has been removed.

     
  25. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share