PDA

View Full Version : We Haven't Had A Repeat NBA Champion Since 2002, Why Is That?



ko8e24
07-03-2009, 05:02 PM
Since the 3-peat Lakers of 2000-2002, we haven't had a repeat NBA Champion. There is a reasoning that the defending NBA Champion might not have been healthy to repeat (ex. 08 spurs, 09 celtics, etc.).

However, the main reason has been because the Defending Champions have not seen the necessity to re-tool, or have lost key players, and if they lost key players, they either stood pat, or tried replacing them with guys who weren't gonna be major contributors (either way too young and inexperienced, or on their last legs)


2003-Spurs are not able to get Jason Kidd, David Robinson Retires, stand pat
-lose to a laker team (whose quest for a 4-peat ended, lost robert horry but re-tooled with GP and Malone)-although they lost in finals


2004-Pistons lose “Big Nasty” Corliss Williamson and Mehmet Okur but add Antonio McDyess
-(1 win away from repeating), losing in game 7 in san antonio in finals

2005-Spurs add Nick Van Exel (sparingly played-way past his prime) and Oberto, but other than that, no significant moves

-lose game 7 to dallas mavericks in ot in semi-finals in san antonio


2006-Heat add Eddie Jones from Grizzlies (way past his prime), but other than that, stand pat

-2007 swept in 1st round by bulls

2007-Spurs add Damon Stoudamire (way past his prime), but other than that, stand pat

-lose to lakers in 5 in 08 WCF

2008-Celtics lose James Posey (big loss), PJ Brown and Sam Cassell and add Stephon Marbury mid-season (way past his prime, basically useless) and Mikki Moore (sparingly played)

-blownout by magic in game 7 in boston in 09 semis


2009-Lakers lose Ariza (big contributor to title, young, up and coming) but get Ron Artest (proven, made money before now wants the ring, former DPOY and All-Star, AT HIS PEAK).

-2010????? (I think re-peat if healthy :D)


And 2 main reasons why Lakers IMO will repeat
1) Phil's New Challenge of getting another Rodman-esque player (Artest) to buy into system, act right, and win title
2) Kobe's New Challenge of making the lakers become 1st nba team in 8 years to repeat.


Your thoughts?????

JordansBulls
07-03-2009, 05:22 PM
Because it is hard to repeat. Hell it is hard enough to get to the finals.

Lakers09
07-03-2009, 05:22 PM
interesting i think we will repeat if sasha farmar and powell amaze the nba somewhat like ariza did

TmacBryant
07-03-2009, 05:37 PM
If lakers keep shannon brown they will dominate. also if sasha can play defense lakers will win 10 champions. The guy fouls every 2 seconds or lets his man right past him.

KaganRS
07-03-2009, 05:39 PM
yeah , lakers are going to win again .... but it wont be easy this time in the finals. Cavs vs Lakers

BUCSFORLIFE123
07-03-2009, 05:59 PM
well the spurs very much couldve had a 4 peat from i think 03-04 to 06-07?

if it wasnt for the infamous .4 fisher shot and nowitzki's unbelievable 3 pt play in closing seconds. they jus had some unfortunate luck

BkOriginalOne
07-03-2009, 06:05 PM
Because Lakers were dismantled after the lost to the pistons. (A team that could never have been a dynasty). Then Lebron and Wade came in.

GrandDaddyPurp
07-03-2009, 06:07 PM
if 2002 went down like it was supposed to, there wouldn't be any repeats !

adidas2307
07-03-2009, 06:13 PM
if 2002 went down like it was supposed to, there wouldn't be any repeats !

Exactly

Durant is hype
07-03-2009, 06:35 PM
if 2002 went down like it was supposed to, there wouldn't be any repeats !

Yes,they would. They won in 00 and 01-That's considered repeating.

Good post to the thread starter.

OA SLAY
07-03-2009, 06:36 PM
Knicks in 2011,2012 and 2013... Then the world comes to an End! everyone dies happy

Reyes6
07-03-2009, 06:40 PM
Because Laker fans touch other Lakers fans at night.

The offseason just began, let's stop announcing champions before we even know who's on what teams.

My 1,000 post yays!

MTar786
07-03-2009, 07:26 PM
lakers could have won every ring this decade if kobe n shaq were brothers and glen rice had eternal youth.. this 'if' thing really irritates me. wat happened happened. deal with it. but i see la repeating this year and maybe even becoming a dynasty.. the modern 90's bulls BUT even better

Beno7500
07-03-2009, 07:36 PM
Because Tim Donaghy isnt around

CELTICS4LYFE
07-03-2009, 08:45 PM
Cuz kg got injuried duh!

sexicano31
07-03-2009, 09:03 PM
There is just more parity in the league now adays

asandhu23
07-03-2009, 09:37 PM
if 2002 went down like it was supposed to, there wouldn't be any repeats !

yes. Sacramento Kings got robbed of a championship.

JM09
07-03-2009, 09:59 PM
Because David Stern only wants the Lakers to win titles, but since 2002, the lakers have never been good enough... not even for stern's rigged nba games. Except this year of couse. It took an injured Garnett to make Stern make up his mind and say "Lakers 09 title"

OG "Dee" LOCc
07-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Because Tim Donaghy isnt around

LOL /thread

Fool
07-03-2009, 11:32 PM
It seems as if all of the other elite teams make trades and signings to get better, while the championship team sits tight, thinking they can win it with the same team.

Netslunatic76
07-04-2009, 04:16 AM
It seems as if all of the other elite teams make trades and signings to get better, while the championship team sits tight, thinking they can win it with the same team.

Why not? Stick with what got you there the first time right?

Kyle N.
07-04-2009, 04:24 AM
You win some you lose some.

junion
07-04-2009, 04:55 AM
because of the salary cap

ZebraCity916
07-04-2009, 05:24 AM
Because Tim Donaghy isnt around

Exactly!!!!

NotVeryOriginal
07-04-2009, 08:38 AM
Because David Stern only wants the Lakers to win titles, but since 2002, the lakers have never been good enough... not even for stern's rigged nba games. Except this year of couse. It took an injured Garnett to make Stern make up his mind and say "Lakers 09 title"

I havent seen you before but Im guessing your other 38 posts are equally as crap as this.

DCSportsIsPain
07-04-2009, 08:49 AM
Simple Answer: Because Champions are always at or over the cap, so while everyone else is signing big names to get better, Champions are trying to keep their core players together. The NBA does not allow teams to stand pat and win back-to-back. Every team that wins a championship has made a major move the previous off-season.

DCSportsIsPain
07-04-2009, 09:04 AM
Because David Stern only wants the Lakers to win titles, but since 2002, the lakers have never been good enough... not even for stern's rigged nba games. Except this year of couse. It took an injured Garnett to make Stern make up his mind and say "Lakers 09 title"

I disagree. Stern would love for the N.Y. Knicks to win a title. NY is the largest NBA market and the NBA ad revenue from a Knicks title would make Stern cream himself. The problem is that the Knicks won't cooperate. They refuse to even try to be competitive. Even the aforementioned Tim Donaghy can't throw 40 games without it being obvious.

The entire league benefits from large market teams winning due to the B.R.I. structure of the C.B.A.. 57% of the BRI goes directly into the team owners' pockets, so the more ad revenue, the more owners have to play with. BRI also determines salary cap and luxury tax cap for the following season, so while each owner would like his or her team to win, when large market teams win, everybody wins.

The Top Media Markets Are:

#1 New York City, New York
#2 Los Angeles, California
#3 Chicago, Illinois
#4 San Francisco, California
#5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#6 Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas
#7 Washington, District of Columbia
#8 Boston, Massachusetts
#9 Miami, Florida
#10 Detroit, Michigan
#11 Houston, Texas
#12 Phoenix, Arizona
#13 Seattle, Washington
#14 Minneapolis, Minnesota
#15 Cleveland, Ohio
#16 Sacramento, California
#17 San Diego, California
#18 Denver, Colorado
#19 Tampa, Florida
#20 St. Louis, Missouri
#21 Atlanta, Georgia
#22 Baltimore, Maryland
#23 Orlando, Florida
#24 Indianapolis, Indiana
#25 Portland, Oregon

IndyRealist
07-04-2009, 10:29 AM
Occam's Razor.

I don't know how this became a conspiracy thread, but the answer really is simple. Big markets have the money to spend on championships. There is no conspiracy against small market teams, the fact is that unless they have a transcendant superstar (Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Duncan, Lebron, etc.) the team simply does not have the revenue stream that it takes to fund a championship team. Teams with limited revenue often do not pursue big name talent. They make personnel decisions based on not exceeding the luxury tax, big market teams are rarely so constrained. The Spurs are the small market model of efficiency, which is the reason they've been able to win championships while keeping salary relatively low. They're an abberation.

Giantwarrior
07-04-2009, 11:02 AM
its because of free agency, contract extensions, and the greed of money. once a team wins a title.

IDB Josh M
07-04-2009, 11:19 AM
Because there are many good teams in the league. Even back before the Showtime era of the 80's, there wasn't a repeating championship since the end of the last Celtics dynasty of the 1960's. It is a difficult feat for any club to accomplish. Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls and Rockets are the only teams to accomplish this. Technically, the folks of the 80's and 90's were spoiled to see multiple repeat championships. From 1987-1998, Showtime Lakers repeated, then the Bad Boy Pistons, then the Jordan's Bulls got their first 3-peat, then Jordan retired allowing Olajawon's Rockets to repeat, then Jordan again 3-peated. Then Shaq-Kobe got a 3-peat after the lockout year (where the Spurs won a title.)

Its too bad for the spurs, if not for the 04 Lakers and 06 Mavericks, the Spurs would have been the first 5-peat champion since 1963! BTW, between 1959 and 1966, Boston Celtics accomplished the 8-peat. If not for the St Louise Hawks (1958) and the 76ers (1967), it would be the lucky 13-peat!

I'm a lakers fan, but ain't nobody gonna beat THAT record!

IndiansFan337
07-04-2009, 11:45 AM
Parity, injuries, F/A movement....There are plenty of reasons.

The C's lost Posey after they won, then KG got injured.

The Spurs have had some injuries in various seasons.

Shaq let himself go after Miami won the championship & then D-Wade got injured.

There is no dominant team in the NBA right now. Sure, some will say the Lakers...But they didn't even have the #1 seed last yr. And they weren't the favorites to win the championship last season....So we can't call them dominant. Not to mention, they got pushed to 7 games by a depleted Houston squad.

The Lakers, Spurs, Cavs, Magic, Celtics, all are looked at as possible world champions heading into next season. Some may want to throw Denver & Portland (if they use their cap space to land another big piece) into the mix, but I don't see those teams being capable of knocking out 2-3 of the aforementioned teams. The top teams are spending now before their window of opportunity closes, while the rest of the league is trying to cut costs. It is going to make the top of the league tougher & more competitive for the time being. Right now the teams that are committed to winning are willing to take on big, fat contracts that other teams are looking to dump (ORL took VC, CLE took Shaq, SAS took Jefferson, LAL signed Artest & are still attempting to retain Odom, etc.).

ko8e24
07-04-2009, 01:06 PM
Parity, injuries, F/A movement....There are plenty of reasons.

The C's lost Posey after they won, then KG got injured.

The Spurs have had some injuries in various seasons.

Shaq let himself go after Miami won the championship & then D-Wade got injured.

There is no dominant team in the NBA right now. Sure, some will say the Lakers...But they didn't even have the #1 seed last yr. And they weren't the favorites to win the championship last season....So we can't call them dominant. Not to mention, they got pushed to 7 games by a depleted Houston squad.

The Lakers, Spurs, Cavs, Magic, Celtics, all are looked at as possible world champions heading into next season. Some may want to throw Denver & Portland (if they use their cap space to land another big piece) into the mix, but I don't see those teams being capable of knocking out 2-3 of the aforementioned teams. The top teams are spending now before their window of opportunity closes, while the rest of the league is trying to cut costs. It is going to make the top of the league tougher & more competitive for the time being. Right now the teams that are committed to winning are willing to take on big, fat contracts that other teams are looking to dump (ORL took VC, CLE took Shaq, SAS took Jefferson, LAL signed Artest & are still attempting to retain Odom, etc.).

Of course they were, celtics and lakers were both set to meet on a collision course again. lakers made it to finals without gasol, were 2 wins aways from winning title (it was that close, but yet seemed so far away), and then u add to what they had already andrew bynum and a healthy trevor ariza. and then celtics lost posey, of course before season started, lakers were the favorites. cavs didn't start to become legit title contenders around game #15 of regular season or so. lakers were blowing people out from game 1.

also, standing pat has cost the last couple of champions to not repeat. seems like they become content winning 1 ring, and then take the approach of "lets rest during the summer, lets cherish this time winning the trophy, lets get ready for the parade, we gotta get our boys back together, we'll see what happens next yr, but ya". that stupid "way too laid back approach" has bit the defending champinos in the arse. I guess in a way, this is a blessing in disguise, lakers needed a shakeup and actually instill some fear in their opponents with the psycho ron artest.

DCB/LAL
07-04-2009, 04:28 PM
Because David Stern only wants the Lakers to win titles, but since 2002, the lakers have never been good enough... not even for stern's rigged nba games. Except this year of couse. It took an injured Garnett to make Stern make up his mind and say "Lakers 09 title"

HAHAHA :laugh: :laugh: this guy is too funny!!

Anyway with the way teams are stacked and have so much talent its hard to repeat it use to be where you could pickout a favorite and know that was the team to beat and now-a-days you cant just pick a team cause any team can win it!! Its all about with who and how you match up in the playoffs

Bruno
07-05-2009, 05:53 PM
For me, this is one of a few reasons why I think the 90's was a less competitive decade than the 80's and 2000's. In the 2000's the Lakers had the Spurs giving them a legit run for their money every time, and vise versa. In the 80's Lakers vs Celtics/Pistons/76ers was much more competitive than anything the 90's Bulls ever faced.

I understand the Bulls were amazing and dominated the decade, but I dont think the 90's Bulls would have dominated the elite teams of the 80' and 2000's like they did the next best teams of the 90's. I also think this is why winning 69+ games twice in a row was possible.

S-Dot
07-06-2009, 07:58 AM
Because Shaq isn't in his prime anymore

WoodbridgeSkins
07-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Injuries, FA, and probably slacked off after winning the title once.

AntiG
07-06-2009, 08:12 AM
I disagree. Stern would love for the N.Y. Knicks to win a title. NY is the largest NBA market and the NBA ad revenue from a Knicks title would make Stern cream himself. The problem is that the Knicks won't cooperate. They refuse to even try to be competitive. Even the aforementioned Tim Donaghy can't throw 40 games without it being obvious.

Not to mention Stern most likely grew up a Knick fan born in NYC and raised in northern NJ... then went to Rutgers...