PDA

View Full Version : Shaq could be first to win title with Lakers & Celtics...right?



69centers
09-30-2010, 11:17 AM
If he wins a ring in Boston, I believe he will be the only NBA player to win a title with both franchises. Anyone know of anyone else? I know guys like Don Nelson played for both, but he didn't get a ring with the Lakers.

69centers
09-30-2010, 11:17 AM
If it's true, Shaq has never mentioned it, but I wouldn't doubt it if it was on his mind.

RaiderLakersA's
09-30-2010, 12:31 PM
IF it were to happen, yes, I believe Shaq would be the only person to win a ring with both the Lakers and the Celtics.

It won't happen.



That said, there is at least one former Celtic who won his rings with the Lakers. Consider Shaq a moderate balancing out the scales, now that he's bringing his championship bling to Boston.

RaiderLakersA's
09-30-2010, 12:38 PM
And to think they STILL have more championships than the Lakers.

The Celtics have the most championships of every NBA franchise to their credit. By 1. The Lakers, to their credit, are working on matching them. I'm not quite sure what the rest of the teams in the league are doing. Hopefully 40 - 50 years from now other organizations will be able to enter that conversation...as opposed to barking at the heels of giants as they walk by.

69centers
09-30-2010, 08:18 PM
The Minneapolis titles shouldn't count. Totally different team and city. It would be no different than if OKC were to add their titles with Seattle's if they win any, which would be wrong and I doubt anyone would do that. Just because they kept the "Lakers" name, shouldn't give them access to a previous city's titles. If that city folds it's franchise, it shouldn't pass on it's fame.

Kevj77
09-30-2010, 08:44 PM
The Minneapolis titles shouldn't count. Totally different team and city. It would be no different than if OKC were to add their titles with Seattle's if they win any, which would be wrong and I doubt anyone would do that. Just because they kept the "Lakers" name, shouldn't give them access to a previous city's titles. If that city folds it's franchise, it shouldn't pass on it's fame.That's BS it's still the Lakers. I'm an Oakland Raiders fan, but Oakland won two of it's Super Bowls in LA. Does that mean the Raiders only have one Super Bowl. I still count all three. Just something made up by Celtics fans because the Lakers might tie or pass them in championships in the next 3-4 years unless the Heat bails Boston out.

69centers
09-30-2010, 09:02 PM
That's BS it's still the Lakers. I'm an Oakland Raiders fan, but Oakland won two of it's Super Bowls in LA. Does that mean the Raiders only have one Super Bowl. I still count all three. Just something made up by Celtics fans because the Lakers might tie or pass them in championships in the next 3-4 years unless the Heat bails Boston out.

Nice try. You didn't even read my comparison. You're bringing up another team that kept the "name". Just because a franchise moves cities and keeps it's name, means they can keep the titles? Great argument. If you think the Thunder should add the Sonics titles to their's, that's crazy. Their city change had them deciding to change their name. The Lakers could have easily changed theirs but didn't. Would you still be adding the totals up if the Lakers were the LA Celebs?

Changing cities means a city folds and no longer wants it's franchise. No titles should move with them. It's like declaring bankruptcy. The law makes you change your business name. They ought to do that in the NBA, to prevent inflated egos of fans. Name me 100 LA Laker fans who were Minneapolis Laker fans before they came to LA. Yah, that's what I thought.

New fan base, new city = new title count.

You chose to stay with the Raiders. If anything, people in Minneapolis should still call the Lakers and their titles their team, not the other way around.

NYKNYGNYY
09-30-2010, 09:19 PM
it wont happen but id rather it be the celtics then the cheat

AntiG
09-30-2010, 09:43 PM
New fan base, new city = new title count.

You chose to stay with the Raiders. If anything, people in Minneapolis should still call the Lakers and their titles their team, not the other way around.

Not to mention them keeping their name is utterly ridiculous. The Laker name is supposed to represent the people of Minnesota, "the land of a thousand lakes."

Its like if the 49ers moved to Minnesota and kept their name, or if the Dallas Texans had kept their name when they moved to KC instead of changing to the Chiefs.

MTar786
09-30-2010, 09:43 PM
Nice try. You didn't even read my comparison. You're bringing up another team that kept the "name". Just because a franchise moves cities and keeps it's name, means they can keep the titles? Great argument. If you think the Thunder should add the Sonics titles to their's, that's crazy. Their city change had them deciding to change their name. The Lakers could have easily changed theirs but didn't. Would you still be adding the totals up if the Lakers were the LA Celebs?

Changing cities means a city folds and no longer wants it's franchise. No titles should move with them. It's like declaring bankruptcy. The law makes you change your business name. They ought to do that in the NBA, to prevent inflated egos of fans. Name me 100 LA Laker fans who were Minneapolis Laker fans before they came to LA. Yah, that's what I thought.

New fan base, new city = new title count.

You chose to stay with the Raiders. If anything, people in Minneapolis should still call the Lakers and their titles their team, not the other way around.

let me make life simple for u buddy. how many titles do THE LAKERS have?

there's ur answer

oh and can u name me 100 celtics fans who watched bill russel play live?

and yes, okc can keep their sonics history. do the wizards not get to keep the bullets? to the grizzlies have to fold everything from vancouver? as long as their players stayed and not both the city and team name changed it should be fine. and even then.. i still see the thunder as the sonics. they are no expansion team. All their players were from the sonics

69centers
09-30-2010, 10:08 PM
When a team changes it's name and moves cities, their history is talked about, but never in the same way as when they keep the name. It should be the same standard for both.

The Sonics won one title, and if OKC wins one, no one will ever, ever say the Thunder have won two championships. It would be referred to as, and one now and one when they were the Sonics. It should be the same with the Lakers, but you will never hear anyone saying, "the LA Lakers have xxx titles, and an additional xxx titles in Minneapolis". They simply lump it all together because it's easier to say The Lakers have won xxxx total titles. It's all in the name, but that shouldn't matter.

MTar786
09-30-2010, 10:26 PM
let me attempt to make life easier for you again. The LAKERS ORGANISATION has xxx titles.. get it now?

championships
09-30-2010, 10:50 PM
LOL, Boston fans. You act like only Laker fans count those ships from another city. The NBA and its archives count them. Lakers are going to pass you up, Get over it.

Law25
09-30-2010, 11:16 PM
I still cant get over the fact the an 3 time Lakers Finals MVP decided to join the franchises HATED RIVAL. It really turns my stomach. How can you have so little respect for their history. I still believe they will meet the Lakeshow i the finals but i believe the baskball gods are on our side because of this.

To qoute Artest " I totaly forgot the question". :D

Jah king
09-30-2010, 11:30 PM
If he wins a ring in Boston, I believe he will be the only NBA player to win a title with both franchises. Anyone know of anyone else? I know guys like Don Nelson played for both, but he didn't get a ring with the Lakers.

It will never happen

IDB Josh M
10-01-2010, 01:51 AM
Man, this topic has derailed.

Bill Sharman won a titles with both the Celtics (as a player) and the Lakers (as a coach). Shaq would be the first player to win titles as a player, but not the first person to win with both organizations.

And the whole Laker's minneapolis titles shouldn't count is ridiculous! The Thunder won't be considered champions ever because by agreement with the city of Seattle, they left their legacy in Seattle to move to OKC. Lakers on the other hand, took their legacy with them.

Although 69centers is right if he says "Los Angeles needs more than 1 NBA title to match Boston."

GunFactor187
10-01-2010, 02:00 AM
If Shaq does win one in Boston, I can see it now...

"How does my *** taste, Mr. Duncan?" LOL!!!

Kevj77
10-01-2010, 02:42 AM
Nice try. You didn't even read my comparison. You're bringing up another team that kept the "name". Just because a franchise moves cities and keeps it's name, means they can keep the titles? Great argument.Sure why not? If you had the money to buy a company or brand would you change the name? Would you erase it's history? If you had the money to buy Nike would you change the name? Not likely.

Lakerfan8032
10-01-2010, 02:52 AM
When a team changes it's name and moves cities, their history is talked about, but never in the same way as when they keep the name. It should be the same standard for both.

The Sonics won one title, and if OKC wins one, no one will ever, ever say the Thunder have won two championships. It would be referred to as, and one now and one when they were the Sonics. It should be the same with the Lakers, but you will never hear anyone saying, "the LA Lakers have xxx titles, and an additional xxx titles in Minneapolis". They simply lump it all together because it's easier to say The Lakers have won xxxx total titles. It's all in the name, but that shouldn't matter.

Wow! You really are an ignorant bastard. It is one franchise and that's it. The only reason you're saying this is because you're a Celtics fan and your bias is blinding you to reality. Accept it and know the Lakers are right there with the Celtics and hopefully will tie them coming this summer. The're both great franchises and the class of the NBA. That is all that matters.

I don't know if you've ever been to Sacramento but they have a banner in the rafters signifying the 1951 (I think) NBA championship when they were known as the Rochester Royals. According to your logic that never happened in their history and they should not have that banner hanging up in Arco Arena.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

Baller1
10-01-2010, 03:20 AM
Although he's got a shot to win with Boston, I really just don't see it with Miami running this league now.

miller
10-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Wow! You really are an ignorant bastard. It is one franchise and that's it. The only reason you're saying this is because you're a Celtics fan and your bias is blinding you to reality. Accept it and know the Lakers are right there with the Celtics and hopefully will tie them coming this summer. There both great franchises and the class of the NBA. That is all that matters.

I don't know if you've ever been to Sacramento but they have a banner in the rafters signifying the 1951 (I think) NBA championship when they were known as the Rochester Royals. According to your logic that never happened in their history and they should not have that banner hanging up in Arco Arena.

I guess ignorance is bliss.


I agree with you that the Lakers organization should count the titles won in Minneapolis and Los Angeles...but to be consistent shouldn't your sig include the WS wins the Giants won as the New York Giants?

barreleffact
10-01-2010, 09:43 AM
Even if you dont count LAs titles in Minni, they still won more rings and have been relevant longer since Russel won those 11.

YankeesR#2
10-01-2010, 10:41 AM
Wow! You really are an ignorant bastard. It is one franchise and that's it. The only reason you're saying this is because you're a Celtics fan and your bias is blinding you to reality. Accept it and know the Lakers are right there with the Celtics and hopefully will tie them coming this summer. There both great franchises and the class of the NBA. That is all that matters.

I don't know if you've ever been to Sacramento but they have a banner in the rafters signifying the 1951 (I think) NBA championship when they were known as the Rochester Royals. According to your logic that never happened in their history and they should not have that banner hanging up in Arco Arena.

I guess ignorance is bliss.

At one time it may have been considered OK for a franchise to move and take their history with them but it is no longer the case. That's why when the Colts slithered out of Baltmore in the middle of the night the kept the Colts name but when the Browns left Cleveland they left their colors, nickname and history behind. You can't undo the injustice of having a team nickname like the Lakers in Los Angeles or the Jazz in Utah but you can correctly acknowledge that those teams represented Minnesota were rooted for by fans in Minnesota and by players who lived in Minnesota, not California.

You should probably edit your post and take out the ignorant bastard part because you are calling him ignorant for doing the same thing you are. By your reasoning the Giants won 5 World Series not zero but I won't call you ignorant because I agree with you, the San Fransisco Giants have won zero World Series.

On point of the thread, I have alays found it ironic that the Los Angeles Pro basketball team could never win a championship until they found a former Celtic to teach them how to do it..

Supa
10-01-2010, 10:49 AM
You can tell Boston fans are worried; they are ahead in championship, yet they're insisting that the Lakers' Minneapolis days don't count. Seems like Boston fans are already anticipating being passed over.

You guys have a good team, have some confidence.

---

beasted86
10-01-2010, 01:43 PM
Lakers franchise championships are Lakers frachise championships... but the only reason "The Lakers" kept their name was because they were a successful franchise. Conversely when the Clippers eventually vacate town they will change everything including their colors to try and escape their dreaded history. Won't change the fact that they are a 40+ year old franchise with 0 titles. Once again conversely, the Nets are likely to revert themselves back to the New York Nets when they were a successful franchise and won championships.

joeym
10-01-2010, 02:25 PM
Not to mention them keeping their name is utterly ridiculous. The Laker name is supposed to represent the people of Minnesota, "the land of a thousand lakes."

Its like if the 49ers moved to Minnesota and kept their name, or if the Dallas Texans had kept their name when they moved to KC instead of changing to the Chiefs.

you mean like the Memphis Grizzlies?....I don't think there are any grizzlies in Memphis....

godolphins
10-01-2010, 03:04 PM
Shaq won't win a championship with the celtics.

69centers
10-01-2010, 05:16 PM
So, if the Detroit Gems had won a title, the Lakers would have added that, too?

znick21
10-01-2010, 05:26 PM
this is one of the dumbest ****ing arguments i've ever seen.

celtisox41
10-01-2010, 05:30 PM
LOL, Boston fans. You act like only Laker fans count those ships from another city. The NBA and its archives count them. Lakers are going to pass you up, Get over it.

Really? Can you predict the future? The Celtics have the most championships, and thats a fact, get over it

Rico1455
10-01-2010, 05:40 PM
It will never happen

What he said

Mplsman
10-01-2010, 07:11 PM
That would be an epic end of an awesome career for shaq.

Lakerfan8032
10-01-2010, 07:43 PM
I agree with you that the Lakers organization should count the titles won in Minneapolis and Los Angeles...but to be consistent shouldn't your sig include the WS wins the Giants won as the New York Giants?

You're right. I didn't notice it when I first did it. A while after I made it I looked at it and noticed I didn't include the five as the N.Y. Giants and have since been too lazy to do it but I will do it now since I'm being called on it. It will be changed soon. It looks bad now since what I said in this thread.

Lakerfan8032
10-01-2010, 07:50 PM
Really? Can you predict the future? The Celtics have the most championships, and thats a fact, get over it

The fact that pisses me off the most is that over half of the Celtics' championships have come at the expense of the Lakers. Once in Minnesota and the other eight in L.A. And six of those times in the 1960's alone. If they just had those nine that would still be more than any other franchise except the Lakers.

I'm so glad I wasn't around then because I would have completely lost it. I completely understand why Jerry West can't stand the sight of green. How could he?

Lakerfan8032
10-01-2010, 08:07 PM
At one time it may have been considered OK for a franchise to move and take their history with them but it is no longer the case. That's why when the Colts slithered out of Baltmore in the middle of the night the kept the Colts name but when the Browns left Cleveland they left their colors, nickname and history behind. You can't undo the injustice of having a team nickname like the Lakers in Los Angeles or the Jazz in Utah but you can correctly acknowledge that those teams represented Minnesota were rooted for by fans in Minnesota and by players who lived in Minnesota, not California.

You should probably edit your post and take out the ignorant bastard part because you are calling him ignorant for doing the same thing you are. By your reasoning the Giants won 5 World Series not zero but I won't call you ignorant because I agree with you, the San Fransisco Giants have won zero World Series.

On point of the thread, I have alays found it ironic that the Los Angeles Pro basketball team could never win a championship until they found a former Celtic to teach them how to do it..

Sig updated. I never thought of the Bill Sharman factor as teaching the Lakers how to finally win. I knew all about him being a Celtic and him being a great coach during that span but that is a good point you bring up there. Since that time it is Lakers 11, Celtics 6.

blacknell
10-01-2010, 08:20 PM
i wish he would have just went to miami.. Boston is to old now so i doubt they win another ring or even make it

YankeesR#2
10-02-2010, 03:06 PM
i wish he would have just went to miami.. Boston is to old now so i doubt they win another ring or even make it

No one thought they would win last year but they almost did.

There have always been two certainties in my life, one is that I will always root against the yankees and the other is that I would root against the lakers.

No matter who they are playing I'll always root for the other team and I would have bet my life that would never change. and I would have lost because if the finals are between the lakers and the heat I'll be rooting for the lakers, even though they are led by a rapist who should be in prison( our country has come far when rich black people can have the same benefits that rich white people have been enjoying for generations I'm talking about you kennedys).

No matter what. the heat shall not win!

0nekhmer
10-02-2010, 03:13 PM
shaq is a whore, but nobody cares about him now

kblo247
10-03-2010, 03:32 AM
The Minneapolis titles shouldn't count. Totally different team and city. It would be no different than if OKC were to add their titles with Seattle's if they win any, which would be wrong and I doubt anyone would do that. Just because they kept the "Lakers" name, shouldn't give them access to a previous city's titles. If that city folds it's franchise, it shouldn't pass on it's fame.

So the Clippers(Braves) and Celtics trading franchises should discredit some of those titles as well right?

kblo247
10-03-2010, 03:32 AM
As for Shaq, yeah he would be the first as Fox and Shaw didn't win in Boston

lakers4sho
10-03-2010, 11:00 AM
Same owner, same management, same players, same team.

/argument

footballer2369
10-03-2010, 11:11 AM
It's a statistical impossibility.