PDA

View Full Version : C's (17 titles, 48 playoff appearances) vs Lakers (16 Titles, 57 playoff apperances)



JordansBulls
06-18-2010, 04:03 PM
Which is the NBA's Greatest Franchise?

Celtics (17 Championships, 48 playoff appearances)
Lakers (16 Championships, 57 playoff appearances)


The poll was here.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-lakers

ko8e24
06-18-2010, 04:05 PM
I want Boston and LA to meet one last time in the finals to decide the ti-breaker for this era of NBA basketball, and if LA wins again, they tie Boston, become 4-9 against them in the finals, but with the longevity and consistency of winning and elitism with the LA Lakers, they will become the greatest franchise in the NBA, with more chances to win more titles in the coming yrs.

asandhu23
06-18-2010, 04:06 PM
uh...

Hellcrooner
06-18-2010, 04:07 PM
lakers.

we have neever sucke for more tha 1 or 2 years we have ben in the finals in EACH decade and won a ring in all of the decades but TWo.


celtics were destroyed for almost 20 years after bird.

Tragedy
06-18-2010, 04:07 PM
I look at it like this:

1) When the Celtics make it to the Finals, they win. 17-4 is absolutely ridiculous..I can't comprehend it.

But on the other hand:

2) The Lakers have been to the title game THIRTY ONE times. That, again, is absolutely ridiculous.

Each team, though, has a negative side:

1) For the Celtics, they haven't been there nearly as many times as the Lakers.

And the other negative..

2) The Lakers are 16-15 in the Finals. That's amazing that they've been there so many times, but that's not a very good percentage.

I'll take Boston.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 04:13 PM
I don't really care.

But I'll go with what Tragedy said.

Avenged
06-18-2010, 04:18 PM
The Lakers are more consistent but at the end of the day championships are what matters.

tsb77
06-18-2010, 04:18 PM
It's not even close. Boston has 17 rings whereas LA only has 11 and Minneapolis has 5. You gotta give it to the franchise that has remained in one city its entire history.

Tragedy
06-18-2010, 04:20 PM
It's not even close. Boston has 17 rings whereas LA only has 11 and Minneapolis has 5. You gotta give it to the franchise that has remained in one city its entire history.
Yeah, I meant to add in the history of Minneapolis as well - I just wasn't sure how many Minny had. Lakers having 11 rings totally changes things.

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:23 PM
In terms of franchise gotta go with the Lakers they've won championships EVERY DECADE who else can claim that? Yeah Celtics won 9 when the league wasn't what it is today.

Tragedy
06-18-2010, 04:26 PM
In terms of franchise gotta go with the Lakers they've won championships EVERY DECADE who else can claim that? Yeah Celtics won 9 when the league wasn't what it is today.
What's the point of downplaying any championship? Should Celtic fans go through and find cheap Laker wins I guess.

Don't discredit any Championship, that's cheap.

And like someone has pointed out, it's 17 to 11. How many less appearances would the Lakers have then, too? I don't know that number. It's like San Fran Giants and New York Giants - No one gives the San Fran Giants the championships they won before they moved because the people of San Fran weren't enjoying them. I doubt many LA people were enjoying the Minny wins.

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:30 PM
What's the point of downplaying any championship? Should Celtic fans go through and find cheap Laker wins I guess.

Don't discredit any Championship, that's cheap.

And like someone has pointed out, it's 17 to 11. How many less appearances would the Lakers have then, too? I don't know that number. It's like San Fran Giants and New York Giants - No one gives the San Fran Giants the championships they won before they moved because the people of San Fran weren't enjoying them. I doubt many LA people were enjoying the Minny wins.

Not discrediting anything its amazing that they won 9 in a row....all be it in a weaker era with less teams.....Lakers winning a championship every decade is more impressive IMO that means that no matter how the NBA changes the Lakers will always be a contending team the same cannot be said about the Celtics.

hugepatsfan
06-18-2010, 04:37 PM
Not discrediting anything its amazing that they won 9 in a row....all be it in a weaker era with less teams.....Lakers winning a championship every decade is more impressive IMO that means that no matter how the NBA changes the Lakers will always be a contending team the same cannot be said about the Celtics.

By that logic we need to erase quite a few of the Laker appearences from this poll to. Because that era was a big part of Laker history as well.

bostncelts34
06-18-2010, 04:38 PM
17/48


16/57.

ill take Boston. Plus, Boston is 9-3 all time against the lakers in the finals. Gotta take the C's

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:44 PM
By that logic we need to erase quite a few of the Laker appearences from this poll to. Because that era was a big part of Laker history as well.

Fine go ahead and that furthers my point that the Lakers have been able to win every decade which is really impressive cause they were able to win championships EVERY era.....including the MJ era....everyone seems to forget(sarcasm of course they just ignore the fact) but MJ did play more than those 6 years when he won championships.


Take away those weaker era championships and the Lakers actually blow the Celtics out of the water it wouldn't be much of a discussion IMO.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 04:45 PM
Fine go ahead and that furthers my point that the Lakers have been able to win every decade which is really impressive cause they were able to win championships EVERY era.....including the MJ era....everyone seems to forget(sarcasm of course they just ignore the fact) but MJ did play more than those 6 years when he won championships.


Take away those weaker era championships and the Lakers actually blow the Celtics out of the water it wouldn't be much of a discussion IMO.

They didn't win a title in the 90's. When did they win in the MJ era?

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:48 PM
Lets not forget that in alot of those championships that Boston LA happened to be the opposing team which means even if LA didn't win they were a contending team the same cannot be said about the Celtics.

hugepatsfan
06-18-2010, 04:48 PM
They didn't win a title in the 90's. When did they win in the MJ era?

The first Shaq championship was actually the 1999-2000 season so you could count that. And MJ was still playing in the 1980s when the showtime Lakers won.

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:49 PM
They didn't win a title in the 90's. When did they win in the MJ era?

2000 is the closing of the decade just like 2010 is the closing for this decade.

Hellcrooner
06-18-2010, 04:50 PM
lol at people going with the cheap minnie excuse.


the francishe is LAKERS so its 16


does someone remove Ny titles from dodgerz?

patehtic

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 04:53 PM
There really is no wrong choice but if I had to choose it'd be LA for those reasons and im sure Celtics fans would pick the C's with good reason and they wouldn't be wrong just like we wouldn't be.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 04:53 PM
2000 is the closing of the decade just like 2010 is the closing for this decade.

So when did they win in the MJ era?

Cuz all of the 80's, it was all Bird and Magic.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 04:54 PM
The first Shaq championship was actually the 1999-2000 season so you could count that. And MJ was still playing in the 1980s when the showtime Lakers won.

But that wasn't MJ's era.

That was the Bird and MAgic era.

magichatnumber9
06-18-2010, 04:55 PM
Both franchises are top notch. If Wyc and the ownership group continue basketball excellence in Boston then I don't give a ****.

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 05:00 PM
So when did they win in the MJ era?

Cuz all of the 80's, it was all Bird and Magic.

Im sorry did MJ not come into the league in 84?? Yes it was Bird and Magic but MJ was still a player during that era and adding to his accolades he won defensive player of the year and MVP in 88 the year the Lakers won the championship so yes while he may of not been winning championships the MJ era had already taken flight unless you wanna take away from all those accolades people talk about with such high regard? MJ at that time was the best player in the league he just hadn't won championships then.

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 05:05 PM
Im sorry did MJ not come into the league in 84?? Yes it was Bird and Magic but MJ was still a player during that era and adding to his accolades he won defensive player of the year and MVP in 88 the year the Lakers won the championship so yes while he may of not been winning championships the MJ era had already taken flight unless you wanna take away from all those accolades people talk about with such high regard? MJ at that time was the best player in the league he just hadn't won championships then.

I do not want to bring this guy up but I just wanna see how much you are going to contradict yourself to keep your man on top.

I got a question. When did the LBJ era start?(And don't worry. I'm going to go somewhere with this)

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 05:08 PM
I do not want to bring this guy up but I just wanna see how much you are going to contradict yourself to keep your man on top.

I got a question. When did the LBJ era start?(And don't worry. I'm going to go somewhere with this)

According to the media and ALOT of people including here on PSD it started LAST YEAR when he won his first MVP isn't that the overwhelming answer?


MJ in 88 WON BOTH the Defensive player of the year award(which LBJ did not do) and MVP....but Lakers 88 NBA Champs.......anymore questions?

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 05:15 PM
According to the media and ALOT of people including here on PSD it started LAST YEAR when he won his first MVP isn't that the overwhelming answer?


MJ in 88 WON BOTH the Defensive player of the year award(which LBJ did not do) and MVP....but Lakers 88 NBA Champs.......anymore questions?

I want to know when the LBJ era started in your opinion.

CowboysKB24
06-18-2010, 05:16 PM
It is a toss up. Celtics do have more titles, but when you look at the great players that have been in LA I think they take it. The only thing Boston has is one more title. Lakers have been there way more times. This thread is pretty much, who do you like more Celtics or Lakers because it is toss up.

DCB/LAL
06-18-2010, 05:27 PM
I want to know when the LBJ era started in your opinion.


1.) What does Lebron have anything to do with the Celtics or Lakers.

2.) If Lebron can average 35 ppg game and win the defensive player of the year in the SAME YEAR I myself will tell you that Lebron James is the best in the league till then you have no arguement.....hell the year before that MJ averaged 37 PPG and 2.88 steals per game those were 2 of his BEST years in his career.

ZioAx
06-18-2010, 05:28 PM
Celtics, not even close.

W/L in the Finals .

Celtcs have lost 4 times, LA 15

Raps18-19 Champ
06-18-2010, 06:05 PM
1.) What does Lebron have anything to do with the Celtics or Lakers.

2.) If Lebron can average 35 ppg game and win the defensive player of the year in the SAME YEAR I myself will tell you that Lebron James is the best in the league till then you have no arguement.....hell the year before that MJ averaged 37 PPG and 2.88 steals per game those were 2 of his BEST years in his career.


1) To see if you'd contradict yourself to keep your homeboy on top.


2) So you're trying to say that it's Kobe's era cuz he's getting all the titles even though Lebron is doing more individual achievements. But you also trying to say that it was MJ's era cuz he was doing the individual things while Magic and Bird were getting all the titles.

So I don't know what you are trying to show. Cuz 1 point, you say its MJ's era cuz he's doing the individual achievements but then you go against that to keep your homeboy on top.

Make up your mind.

Btw, I guess by your standards, anyone who isn't getting 37 and 2.88 is garbage.

And the fact that you trying to debate with post like "KOBE BRYANT 2010 FINALS MVP" in 30 size font isn't helping.

kblo247
06-18-2010, 06:08 PM
It's not even close. Boston has 17 rings whereas LA only has 11 and Minneapolis has 5. You gotta give it to the franchise that has remained in one city its entire history.

Same twisted logic could be used to say:

The Clippers should get credit for those early Celtic titles. They traded ownership, which is the equivalent of relocating.

See what I did there ;)

kblo247
06-18-2010, 06:11 PM
Now back in reality, there is no need to discredit either franchise.

Celtics have won more, but the Lakers have been more relevant.

MissinShowtime
06-18-2010, 06:48 PM
Funny how Loston fans are trying to separate the first 5 titles that the Laker franchise won in Minneapolis...but that's expected. The NBA recognizes the Lakers winning their 16th title so that's all that counts.

I've had this argument with several Smeltics fans and I usually point to these facts...take Bill Russell away from the Smeltics in an era when there were only a dozen teams or so...that organization has as many titles as the Bulls. Take ANY Laker player away and u still have 11 titles as a franchise.

Another point I like to mention is the overall consistency of the Lakers over the Celtics. The Lakers as a franchise have only missed the playoffs 3 seasons out of 60 is I'm not mistaken, with their most losses in a season being 48 I believe. The Celtics have had multiple seasons of 50+ losses and went 21 seasons without making it to the Finals before the so-called Big 3 pt ll got together. And remember how bad they were from the last time Cowens won until Larry Legend arrived? Even Paula Pierce played on some horrible Celtic teams, but how soon we forget.

If the only criteria for this argument is the number of titles...then of course the Celtics have the edge. But I noticed the poll question listed playoff berths as well...so the overall body of work has to come into play. So as it relates to consistency of a winning franchise over the length of its existence...the edge goes to the Lakers!

jojoe1188
06-18-2010, 07:02 PM
Im sorry did MJ not come into the league in 84?? Yes it was Bird and Magic but MJ was still a player during that era and adding to his accolades he won defensive player of the year and MVP in 88 the year the Lakers won the championship so yes while he may of not been winning championships the MJ era had already taken flight unless you wanna take away from all those accolades people talk about with such high regard? MJ at that time was the best player in the league he just hadn't won championships then.

if we are gonna get this technical than i have no choice other than to point out red making that move that brought in len bias and his subsequent death. there is zero doubt in my mind that bias with the big 3 (albeit in their dwindling years) would have won at least 2 championships together, and who knows what happens after that. bias drew comparison's to MJ and Bird was already talking about how excited he was to be passing the ball to this kid.

jojoe1188
06-18-2010, 07:06 PM
Funny how Loston fans are trying to separate the first 5 titles that the Laker franchise won in Minneapolis...but that's expected. The NBA recognizes the Lakers winning their 16th title so that's all that counts.
Ive had this argument with several Smeltics fans and I usually point to these facts...take Bill Russell away from the Smeltics in an era when there were only a dozen teams or so...that organization has as many titles as the Bulls. Take ANY Laker player away and u still have 11 titles as a franchise.
Another point I like to mention is the overall consistency of the Lakers over the Celtics. The Lakers as a franchise have only missed the playoffs 3 seasons out of 60 is I'm not mistaken, with their most losses in a season being 48 I believe. The Celtics have had multiple seasons of 50+ losses and went 21 seasons without making it to the Finals before the so-called Big 3 pt ll got together. And remember how bad they were from the last time Cowens won until Larry Legend arrived? Even Paula Pierce played on some horrible Celtic teams, but how soon we forget.
If the only criteria for this argument is the number of titles...then of course the Celtics have the edge. But I noticed the poll question listed playoff berths as well...so the overall body of work has to come into play. So as it relates to consistency of a winning franchise over the length of its existence...the edge goes to the Lakers!

that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard. take peyton manning away from the colts, blah blah blah. Red went out of his way to trade for this guy from the warriors before he was a superstar. red also drafted larry bird a year early out of college, and made draft day trades to acquire mchale and parish. whereas the lakers have relied heavily on free agents such as kareem, wilt, and shaq. the celtics have a much more saavy track record than do the lakers, who like most of their fans are a bunch of imported phonies.

PS-let us not forget that if it wasn't for that statutory rape (wink wink KOBE) of a trade that brought gasol to LA executed by that dumb *** memphis GM (i forget who) we wouldn't be talking about any of this.

ZioAx
06-18-2010, 07:56 PM
Funny how Loston fans are trying to separate the first 5 titles that the Laker franchise won in Minneapolis...but that's expected. The NBA recognizes the Lakers winning their 16th title so that's all that counts.

I've had this argument with several Smeltics fans and I usually point to these facts...take Bill Russell away from the Smeltics in an era when there were only a dozen teams or so...that organization has as many titles as the Bulls. Take ANY Laker player away and u still have 11 titles as a franchise.

Another point I like to mention is the overall consistency of the Lakers over the Celtics. The Lakers as a franchise have only missed the playoffs 3 seasons out of 60 is I'm not mistaken, with their most losses in a season being 48 I believe. The Celtics have had multiple seasons of 50+ losses and went 21 seasons without making it to the Finals before the so-called Big 3 pt ll got together. And remember how bad they were from the last time Cowens won until Larry Legend arrived? Even Paula Pierce played on some horrible Celtic teams, but how soon we forget.

If the only criteria for this argument is the number of titles...then of course the Celtics have the edge. But I noticed the poll question listed playoff berths as well...so the overall body of work has to come into play. So as it relates to consistency of a winning franchise over the length of its existence...the edge goes to the Lakers!

Welcome new Laker """fan"""

Loston? Smeltics?

Almost time for bed isnt it kiddo?

ARMIN12NBA
06-18-2010, 07:57 PM
Celtics 17, Lakers 16. Very close. The Lakers have better all-time players. The Lakers have been much, much more consistent.

Modern Era: Lakers 10, Celtics 4.

Gotta go with Lakers. I don't see a single argument for the Celtics except 17-16, but one championship doesn't make the overall difference and the fact that the Celtics are done for the next decade at least while the Lakers will contend for the next 3-4 years.

still1ballin
06-18-2010, 08:01 PM
Welcome new Laker """fan"""

Loston? Smeltics?

Almost time for bed isnt it kiddo?


Celtics in 5.

Lakers are still soft. Love the Laker fans saying they're "hungry..want revenge blah blah"
You don't know what the **** they are thinking. The game is going to be won on the court. Team defense >


Lakers are NOT 10x better than in 08. That's laughable.


Should I just pick LA to make you happy? How long have you been on the bandwagon?

Celtics would hit the Lakers in the mouth like they did in 08.


Lakers are soft. I'm really not that concerned.


It would be Celtics in 5

Remember those comments Zioax? Just wanted to hear your reply on those.

MissinShowtime
06-18-2010, 08:02 PM
Welcome new Laker """fan"""

Loston? Smeltics?

Almost time for bed isnt it kiddo?

U know I recall the Lakers saying something similar to the Celtricks last night about bedtime...Hahaha

U know what they say.....if u can't stand the heat, stay the hell out the galley!!!

Lights Out!!! Repeat, 3-Peat, Fo Mo....Let's Go!!!!

still1ballin
06-18-2010, 08:03 PM
Celtics 17, Lakers 16. Very close. The Lakers have better all-time players. The Lakers have been much, much more consistent.

Modern Era: Lakers 10, Celtics 4.

Gotta go with Lakers. I don't see a single argument for the Celtics except 17-16, but one championship doesn't make the overall difference and the fact that the Celtics are done for the next decade at least while the Lakers will contend for the next 3-4 years.

Yeah no doubt Lakers will hold the stat of most championships and its coming soon.

MissinShowtime
06-18-2010, 08:21 PM
that's the dumbest argument i've ever heard. take peyton manning away from the colts, blah blah blah. Red went out of his way to trade for this guy from the warriors before he was a superstar. red also drafted larry bird a year early out of college, and made draft day trades to acquire mchale and parish. whereas the lakers have relied heavily on free agents such as kareem, wilt, and shaq. the celtics have a much more saavy track record than do the lakers, who like most of their fans are a bunch of imported phonies.

PS-let us not forget that if it wasn't for that statutory rape (wink wink KOBE) of a trade that brought gasol to LA executed by that dumb *** memphis GM (i forget who) we wouldn't be talking about any of this.

Allow me to smack u with some common sense and true facts with the speed of Floyd Money Mayweather. First off, there was no such thing as free agency when the Lakers acquired the likes of Kareem and Wilt. You ever heard of Brian Winters, Junior Bridgeman....a few Bucks that happened to be part of the Kareem TRADE....check ur history youngin.
Celtic fans should be the last to cry foul about the Gasol trade. After all, wasn't McHale in the front office in Minn at the time his BFF Ainge worked the Garnett trade? The same McHale that's rumored to succeed Doc once he steps down? Nuff said there about all that Celtic pride....LMAO

Suggestion...check your stats before you come up in here throwin up bricks like Rondo at the FT line. At least show some kinda bball knowledge before you call yourself checkin somebody.

drobe86
06-18-2010, 08:44 PM
Doesn't matter the way the league is set up they should probably just make 2 teams. It will be Boston and LA till the end of time. the rest of the teams dont make enough ratings for stern to showcase them. Its a shame what the nba has come to. guys dont even have to compete anymore. the lakers can get guys like Pau Gasol and Ron Artest for next to nothing. And the celtics can land the big three for a few practice balls and a bag of peanuts. The league is set up for those 2 teams to succeed and no one else. The NBA is officially a joke....

Vidball
06-18-2010, 08:46 PM
C's fell off the map 20 years ago and have only won one title since. They'll fall off the map again soon. Lakers won't.

drobe86
06-18-2010, 08:49 PM
It actually wouldn't surprise me if the Lakers or Boston landed Lebron.

JWO35
06-18-2010, 08:50 PM
The team with more Championships(obviously)

_KB24_
06-18-2010, 08:52 PM
How do you go a-wall for 20 straight years? The Lakers are the most recognizable team in the country after the Yankees. We have never had a serious "rebuilding" process where we have been in total trouble. We have always been a great team to watch and are in the playoffs essentially every year. Our retired numbers in the rafters aren't just some of the best Lakers, they're some of the greatest to ever play. Our all-time team would destroy the league's all time nba team. And we only trail by one ring. The Celtics went down for a significant period and were the laughing stock of the NBA. That would never happen to some of the greatest teams in sports, (Lakers, Yanks, Habs).

ShakeN'Bake
06-18-2010, 09:03 PM
To me its all about championships. On the day that the Lakers surpass the Celtics in championships I will then say they are the greatest nba franchise.

NYMetros
06-18-2010, 10:13 PM
Celtics. I'd rather have more championships. the lakers have a lot of appearances which is nice but you don't get a trophy for 2nd place.

Lakersho
06-18-2010, 10:45 PM
Celtics, not even close.

W/L in the Finals .

Celtcs have lost 4 times, LA 15

your theory is flawed, ok c's lost four times , right? lakers lost 15 times , right ? so by what you said lakers were in the finals 11 more times right ? so when we were in the finals where was celtics ? by your own theory we have a more consistant team, and if you wanna say but no ring. then your saying by celtics not winning this years ring ,that all your team fought for through this years playoffs the pains , injuries , the praise and the heartbreak, that thier no better than the was. wizards this year because they didnt win it all. your theory is biased so you can prove some mute point and make yourself feel better because the celtics lost.o ' ya you cant dis credit 6 titles because the team got sold and moved ,well hell go ahead if it will make you feel better sport ... andgive us 4 more years and we will have 1, 2 , or 3more titles ...

still1ballin
06-18-2010, 10:55 PM
There was already an article on this on ESPN and it was already voted Lakers are #1

OnslaughtXX6
06-18-2010, 11:16 PM
lakers.

we have neever sucke for more tha 1 or 2 years we have ben in the finals in EACH decade and won a ring in all of the decades but TWo.


celtics were destroyed for almost 20 years after bird.

Que, playa?

jojoe1188
06-18-2010, 11:18 PM
Allow me to smack u with some common sense and true facts with the speed of Floyd Money Mayweather. First off, there was no such thing as free agency when the Lakers acquired the likes of Kareem and Wilt. You ever heard of Brian Winters, Junior Bridgeman....a few Bucks that happened to be part of the Kareem TRADE....check ur history youngin.
Celtic fans should be the last to cry foul about the Gasol trade. After all, wasn't McHale in the front office in Minn at the time his BFF Ainge worked the Garnett trade? The same McHale that's rumored to succeed Doc once he steps down? Nuff said there about all that Celtic pride....LMAO

Suggestion...check your stats before you come up in here throwin up bricks like Rondo at the FT line. At least show some kinda bball knowledge before you call yourself checkin somebody.

al jefferson was more than fair compensation for a garnett with 3 years left on his tires. the gasol trade was an absolute joke

CowboysKB24
06-18-2010, 11:49 PM
To me its all about championships. On the day that the Lakers surpass the Celtics in championships I will then say they are the greatest nba franchise.

To an extent. Russell isn't the best player of all time and he has 11 rings? Celtics and Lakers are even IMO. The greatest franchises of all time. Lakers have had better players, more appearances, more playoff wins, etc. The only thing the Cs have is the title. But I agree titles are a lot. I think the Lakers have done it in a more impressive way by not getting the majority of their rings right in a row.

still1ballin
06-18-2010, 11:54 PM
Que, playa?

Yi

hugepatsfan
06-18-2010, 11:56 PM
There was already an article on this on ESPN and it was already voted Lakers are #1

All year ESPN also said Lebron was the best player...

MissinShowtime
06-19-2010, 12:05 AM
[QUOTE=jojoe1188;13714393]al jefferson was more than fair compensation for a garnett with 3 years left on his tires. the gasol trade was an absolute

Memphis turned the page on Gasol and wanted to start new. They gathered an expiring contract (Kwame Brown) as well as a few draft picks, along with Marc Gasol. He is proving to be as good as the Lakers projected when they drafted him.

Last I checked, Memphis is a whole lot closer to earning a playoff berth than Minnesota. The reason that the Garnett trade raised eyebrows (besides the close relationship between the two execs) was that Minnesota turned down several offers that were better than the Boston deal that brought Jefferson to Minn. I'm sure you had to remember a handful of NBA execs calling foul for that very reason.

When its all said and done, the Celtics threw in all the marbles to win one title. It was an embarrassment for such a storied franchise to have fans watching the game with paper bags over their heads....chanting MVP when a Laker stepped to the FT line. U will never get that in L.A. Now the Celtics are the oldest team in the league and changes are sure to be made. On the other hand, Kobe will be playing his final years leading a younger group of teammates and contending for more titles. Patience is a virtue.....building around Pierce & Jefferson was not such a bad idea. Now they're strapped with hefty contracts for an aged group of vets. Hope yall still have those paper bags handy!!!

ShakeN'Bake
06-19-2010, 12:09 AM
To an extent. Russell isn't the best player of all time and he has 11 rings? Celtics and Lakers are even IMO. The greatest franchises of all time. Lakers have had better players, more appearances, more playoff wins, etc. The only thing the Cs have is the title. But I agree titles are a lot. I think the Lakers have done it in a more impressive way by not getting the majority of their rings right in a row.

Well, I don't hold players to the same standards as I look at for teams. For me there's a lot more that goes into determining a players greatness, but for teams its all about the championships.

jojoe1188
06-19-2010, 12:13 AM
[QUOTE=jojoe1188;13714393]al jefferson was more than fair compensation for a garnett with 3 years left on his tires. the gasol trade was an absolute

Memphis turned the page on Gasol and wanted to start new. They gathered an expiring contract (Kwame Brown) as well as a few draft picks, along with Marc Gasol. He is proving to be as good as the Lakers projected when they drafted him.

Last I checked, Memphis is a whole lot closer to earning a playoff berth than Minnesota. The reason that the Garnett trade raised eyebrows (besides the close relationship between the two execs) was that Minnesota turned down several offers that were better than the Boston deal that brought Jefferson to Minn. I'm sure you had to remember a handful of NBA execs calling foul for that very reason.

When its all said and done, the Celtics threw in all the marbles to win one title. It was an embarrassment for such a storied franchise to have fans watching the game with paper bags over their heads....chanting MVP when a Laker stepped to the FT line. U will never get that in L.A. Now the Celtics are the oldest team in the league and changes are sure to be made. On the other hand, Kobe will be playing his final years leading a younger group of teammates and contending for more titles. Patience is a virtue.....building around Pierce & Jefferson was not such a bad idea. Now they're strapped with hefty contracts for an aged group of vets. Hope yall still have those paper bags handy!!!

was jerry west still in memphis when that trade happened? just curious. also, i'm not to worried about the celtics future prospects. yes, the next two years will probably not be serious championship runs, but after that the celts will have loads of cap room and rondo on the cheap. people will want to come to boston to play with rondo you can take that to the bank

still1ballin
06-19-2010, 12:16 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings2010-Lakers

/thread

hugepatsfan
06-19-2010, 12:20 AM
Al Jeff>KG snce year 2 of the deal. Pau>Marc from the start of the deal and will be for the duration of his career. That's why the Gasol deal was a bigger steal than the KG deal. And there were not as many offers as you think.

He was going into the final year of his deal (player option), so any team wopuld have wanted a long term deal if they made a trade. That gave him leverage. He actually was supposed to go to BOS for Al Jeff + the #5 pick, but he refused to sign long term so it fell through. From what I remember, he would only accept a deal to LA or PHX. PHX was unwilling to deal Amare+ for him though. LA, if I remember correctly was unwilling to deal Odom AND Bynum for him. After LA and PHX refused to make a deal, MIN was forced to take the BOS deal. KG was willing to come here after the Ray deal, which took the #5 pick out of the discussion.

hugepatsfan
06-19-2010, 12:21 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings2010-Lakers

/thread

So did you think Lebron was the best player all season until now. Because that's what ESPN said, and apparently their word is God to you.

Tragedy
06-19-2010, 03:35 AM
lol at people going with the cheap minnie excuse.


the francishe is LAKERS so its 16


does someone remove Ny titles from dodgerz?

patehtic
I wasn't aware that the LA fans cheered for the Lakers when Minny won those titles. Kidding me? No one thinks San Fran has ever won a title because the Giants won it back in New York. That's how people generally think of things. The history is split.

Kevj77
06-19-2010, 04:10 AM
Sorry that's terrible logic. I'm a Oakland Raiders fans and you better believe I count the Super Bowls they won in LA. The Lakers have 16 titles.

Bruno
06-19-2010, 06:49 AM
Playoff appearances shouldn't be the #2 factor (behind titles) in judging this JB. It should be championships and championship appearances, which the Lakers dominate.

Lakers: 16/31.
Celtics: 17/21.

Since the end of the 1970's the Lakers lead the Celtics in titles 10-4.

The Lakers lead in total wins and winning % as well.

The Raven
06-19-2010, 07:21 AM
Easily the lakers. Even though they have one less championship, the lakers have pretty much for the most part been competitive their entire existence making the playoffs every year except 5 i think while the Celtics on the other hand had plenty of pitiful seasons with like 19 wins and such.

mser58
06-19-2010, 07:37 AM
Which is the NBA's Greatest Franchise?

Celtics (17 Championships, 48 playoff appearances)
Lakers (16 Championships, 57 playoff appearances)


The poll was here.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-lakers

Finally a stat driven thread given by a veteran poster in the NBA forum

Lakers

markhebert42
06-19-2010, 08:01 AM
I wasn't aware that the LA fans cheered for the Lakers when Minny won those titles. Kidding me? No one thinks San Fran has ever won a title because the Giants won it back in New York. That's how people generally think of things. The history is split.

I don't understand your logic. How can you compare the two teams if you don't count the Minnesota years? Do you throw out the Celtics championships up until 60-61 when the Lakers moved to LA? OF course not, but then how can you compare the two when you claim one has a longer history than the other.

No one in San Fran acknowledges NY Championship wins because they have never won a title in SF. If the Giants had won a dozen championships since moving to the Bay Area, believe that their fans and the media would take the entire total, not just the recent championships.

That said, and I am a Lakers fan, Celtics have us by one ring, plain and simple, but we'll see how long that slim lead lasts.

markhebert42
06-19-2010, 08:05 AM
p.s. Celtics fans who claim the Lakers only have 11 championships are grasping at straws and see that their team is heading down the crapper for the next 3-4 seasons. Won't be able to Keep Rondo there if the team is crappy.

Iron24th
06-19-2010, 08:12 AM
lakers.

we have neever sucke for more tha 1 or 2 years we have ben in the finals in EACH decade and won a ring in all of the decades but TWo.


celtics were destroyed for almost 20 years after bird.

This.

We were competitives almost every year,the celts were nobody during almost 20 years.

We're the team of the decade, 5 titles and 7 Finals (a 3peat and a back to back) during the last 10 years and counting.

Enough said.

JordansBulls
06-19-2010, 09:05 AM
Playoff appearances shouldn't be the #2 factor (behind titles) in judging this JB. It should be championships and championship appearances, which the Lakers dominate.

Lakers: 16/31.
Celtics: 17/21.

Since the end of the 1970's the Lakers lead the Celtics in titles 10-4.

The Lakers lead in total wins and winning % as well.

Yeah, I just used the poll that ESPN used.

jojoe1188
06-19-2010, 10:38 AM
p.s. Celtics fans who claim the Lakers only have 11 championships are grasping at straws and see that their team is heading down the crapper for the next 3-4 seasons. Won't be able to Keep Rondo there if the team is crappy.

we just signed rondo to a 5 year, 11 million dollar a year that kicks in THIS year. so yes, we will be able to keep him, and in two years when all of the big 3's contracts are up we will have a ton of cap space with one of the best young (he will be 26) point guards in the league who is a great distributor, and who knows who good he'll be by then overall. people will want to play with rondo, and we'll have all the money in the world to sign them.

edit: just looked at the 2012 FA class, CARMELO BOSTON 2012 BABY!!!

tr4shb0t
06-19-2010, 03:06 PM
Lakers. Because they have been dominant in recent years when teams are actually competitive with each other. Bill Russell's 11 championships in the 1800s are not so impressive considering the time.

Tragedy
06-19-2010, 03:29 PM
Playoff appearances shouldn't be the #2 factor (behind titles) in judging this JB. It should be championships and championship appearances, which the Lakers dominate.

Lakers: 16/31.
Celtics: 17/21.

Since the end of the 1970's the Lakers lead the Celtics in titles 10-4.

The Lakers lead in total wins and winning % as well.
16/31 is impressive in the sense that, going 31 times is ridiculous. That also means the amount of times there has been heartbreak for the Lakers is outstanding. Losing 4 of 21 is a hell of a lot better than losing 15 of 31.

And again, I think it's laughable that people would say the Lakers have 16 when they have 11. Why are we adding Minny and LA? We don't add San Fran and New York in baseball. That's not how it works.


I don't understand your logic. How can you compare the two teams if you don't count the Minnesota years? Do you throw out the Celtics championships up until 60-61 when the Lakers moved to LA? OF course not, but then how can you compare the two when you claim one has a longer history than the other.

No one in San Fran acknowledges NY Championship wins because they have never won a title in SF. If the Giants had won a dozen championships since moving to the Bay Area, believe that their fans and the media would take the entire total, not just the recent championships.

That said, and I am a Lakers fan, Celtics have us by one ring, plain and simple, but we'll see how long that slim lead lasts.
Uh, why WOULD you throw out the Boston years before the Lakers moved to LA? Celtics have been Boston since the beginning. Lakers have not. Simple as that.

For me, when I think of ring count, I go:

BOS Celtics - 17
LA Lakers - 11
CHI Bulls - 6
MINN Lakers - 5

I don't see how it works any other way. I don't recall, were LA Laker fans excited and throwing parades when the Lakers were winning titles out in Minnesota? That's silly.

As for the slim lead, you're right, we're up by 5. We'll see if the LA Lakers can get 6 more to eclipse us.

Bruno
06-19-2010, 06:25 PM
^Ultimately, going to the finals 10 more times and being down one title to the C's is why most people regard the Lakers as the greatest franchise. Lakers have more playoff appearances, the higher winning %, and more wins. Lots of heartbreak sure, but being in that position to be heart-broken 31 times speaks pretty loudly.

Kevj77
06-19-2010, 07:05 PM
Uh, why WOULD you throw out the Boston years before the Lakers moved to LA? Celtics have been Boston since the beginning. Lakers have not. Simple as that.

For me, when I think of ring count, I go:

BOS Celtics - 17
LA Lakers - 11
CHI Bulls - 6
MINN Lakers - 5

I don't see how it works any other way. I don't recall, were LA Laker fans excited and throwing parades when the Lakers were winning titles out in Minnesota? That's silly.

As for the slim lead, you're right, we're up by 5. We'll see if the LA Lakers can get 6 more to eclipse us.Tragedy you are making yourself look bitter trying to remove the Minny years from Lakers history. It's kind of pathetic.

DCB/LAL
06-21-2010, 07:53 AM
1) To see if you'd contradict yourself to keep your homeboy on top.


2) So you're trying to say that it's Kobe's era cuz he's getting all the titles even though Lebron is doing more individual achievements. But you also trying to say that it was MJ's era cuz he was doing the individual things while Magic and Bird were getting all the titles.

So I don't know what you are trying to show. Cuz 1 point, you say its MJ's era cuz he's doing the individual achievements but then you go against that to keep your homeboy on top.

Make up your mind.

Btw, I guess by your standards, anyone who isn't getting 37 and 2.88 is garbage.

And the fact that you trying to debate with post like "KOBE BRYANT 2010 FINALS MVP" in 30 size font isn't helping.


Show me where Lebron has averaged those CRAZY identical to MJs and has also managed to win DPOY and MVP in the same year and I will tell you he is the best player in the league MJ average over 30 PPG and nearly 3 Steals per game to go along with nearly a block per game in his first 7 years(not including his injury year).


Lebron has great numbers but MJs numbers were pretty insane especially considering he was doing it on the Offensive and Defensive side of the ball......the guy was locking guys down and dropping over 30 per game when has Lebron done that? PLEASE!! Lebron is a great player but what makes MJ the best ever is how GREAT he was on both sides of the ball if Lebron were able to put those same type numbers nobody would argue who the best player is those numbers are insane!


Oh and 1 more thing........


KOBE BRYANT 2010 NBA FINALS MVP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Giantwarrior
06-21-2010, 08:12 AM
Lakers they have the last championship against the celtics.

IMO Minneapolis and Los Angeles Lakers are the same Franchise. you celtics fans are just trying to dig up dirt to find any leverage possible.

Lakers are the team to beat and the 2 time defending NBA champions. They look like a Dynasty, celtics look like duds.

MacFitz92
06-21-2010, 08:34 AM
When they've met 12 times, and Boston has won 9 of the times, you got to give it to Boston.

MacFitz92
06-21-2010, 08:36 AM
Lakers they have the last championship against the celtics.

IMO Minneapolis and Los Angeles Lakers are the same Franchise. you celtics fans are just trying to dig up dirt to find any leverage possible.

Lakers are the team to beat and the 2 time defending NBA champions. They look like a Dynasty, celtics look like duds.

If you want to talk about Dynasty, talk to Bill Russell about his 11 rings. I'm sure Jerry West wouldn't mind backing that up either.