PDA

View Full Version : Lakers or Celtics: Who will win another championship first?



mrblisterdundee
10-04-2015, 02:30 PM
The Celtics lead the Lakers by one championship, and both teams are in a rebuilding process. The Celtics are obviously the better team right now, but Los Angeles has shown the ability to quickly turn around.
Which team will win another championship first?
I hate to say this, but I think it will be the Lakers. Los Angeles is a more attractive landing spot than Boston for free agents. Even Kevin Durant has already show interest in Los Angeles, even though the Lakers were a tire fire last season.

goingfor28
10-04-2015, 02:31 PM
Celtics. Lakers are a mess.

Gander13SM
10-04-2015, 02:42 PM
Neither will win a championship ever again.

Spurs will remain a dynasty. And joining them will be; Golden State, Houston and Washington (when KD joins).

Over the next 10 years those four teams will have 8 of the 10 rings. Warriors get 2 more (3 total), Houston get 2 (back to back), Washington get 2 and Spurs get 2.

The other 2 belong to Cleveland (1) and New Orleans (Davis goes full blown Chamberlain).

Or maybe none of this will ever happen. But since we're speculating based on nothing. I'm sticking with it.

archdevil84
10-04-2015, 03:03 PM
how does houston get past warriors/spurs in the upcoming 5 years? let alone beating cleveland/whoever in the finals?

Gander13SM
10-04-2015, 03:36 PM
how does houston get past warriors/spurs in the upcoming 5 years? let alone beating cleveland/whoever in the finals?

1. They could beat Cleveland in 7 games right now.
2. Who said 5 years? I said within the next 10. And LeBron isn't getting any younger.
3. Why do they have to get past either Warriors or Spurs?
4. The point of my post was to point out that discussing who wins a ring first between two lotto teams is fruitless, fun, but fruitless. Why is there greater odds of Lakers winning a championship in the next 5 years with Kobe and his bus pass trapped in that dysfunctional hell hole than there is of a legit contender like Houston?

c.c.
10-04-2015, 04:52 PM
1. They could beat Cleveland in 7 games right now.
2. Who said 5 years? I said within the next 10. And LeBron isn't getting any younger.
3. Why do they have to get past either Warriors or Spurs?
4. The point of my post was to point out that discussing who wins a ring first between two lotto teams is fruitless, fun, but fruitless. Why is there greater odds of Lakers winning a championship in the next 5 years with Kobe and his bus pass trapped in that dysfunctional hell hole than there is of a legit contender like Houston?

A lot people dislike Harden because he gets to the foul line at will. A lot people dislike Howard due to numerous reasons.

With having two of the most hated players in the NBA, the Rockets tend to never get the respect they deserve.

As a die hard Rockets fan I just try to ignore the haters and continue to hope for that championship with this core to silence the critics!

Tony_Starks
10-04-2015, 05:08 PM
We finished the Celtics once and for all in 2010. They are done, it took them over a 20 year drought to get back to the Finals anyway and that only happened because McHale hooked up his old teammate....

FlashBolt
10-04-2015, 05:41 PM
Easily the Lakers. As dysfunctional as they can be, they are still a more prime location for basketball players. Plus, Bryant is such an influence on a majority of NBA players. Lakers have more leverage.

hugepatsfan
10-04-2015, 06:40 PM
I'd put my money on the Lakers just because they're a more attractive FA landing spot so they don't really have to run their team well. BOS is obviously a better run franchise right now but that doesn't really matter in the NBA.

slaker619
10-04-2015, 06:50 PM
Lakers because they can attract more talent

mrblisterdundee
10-04-2015, 09:19 PM
Neither will win a championship ever again.

Spurs will remain a dynasty. And joining them will be; Golden State, Houston and Washington (when KD joins).

Over the next 10 years those four teams will have 8 of the 10 rings. Warriors get 2 more (3 total), Houston get 2 (back to back), Washington get 2 and Spurs get 2.

The other 2 belong to Cleveland (1) and New Orleans (Davis goes full blown Chamberlain).

Or maybe none of this will ever happen. But since we're speculating based on nothing. I'm sticking with it.

We're making a bet on which of the teams with more than half the NBA's championships so far we think will win another championship first. Why not?

ManningToTyree
10-04-2015, 11:09 PM
Lakers they just never stay down for long

BKLYNpigeon
10-05-2015, 02:03 AM
Lakers.

Gander13SM
10-05-2015, 06:15 AM
We're making a bet on which of the teams with more than half the NBA's championships so far we think will win another championship first. Why not?

Right. Like I said. Fruitless speculation.

And I stick by my bet, neither of them will win another championship ever again.

PatsSoxKnicks
10-08-2015, 01:40 AM
I'd put my money on the Lakers just because they're a more attractive FA landing spot so they don't really have to run their team well. BOS is obviously a better run franchise right now but that doesn't really matter in the NBA.

MUCH MUCH better. Until Kobe leaves though, the Lakers aren't getting any FAs: http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/13815620/losangeles-lakers-the-kobe-bryant-issue

Mave1002
10-08-2015, 02:27 AM
The Lakers.

Two issues though.. Kobe and the fat contract, will end soon. The FO though.. Im not so optimistic with Jim Buss.

But yeah, Im a homer.. Even though Anthony Davis will start pulverizing teams sooner than later barring injuries, its still gona be the Lakers. 2016 onwards.

Tony_Starks
10-08-2015, 09:17 AM
With DLo, Randle, and Clarkson core developing the free agency situation is going to start looking way better. I'll let people continue to scoff and sleep on them but in reality we haven't had a young core of talent like this since Van Exel and Eddie Jones. Just like back then when other players start recognizing their game it makes it a lot easier to land a bigtime FA because they see the supporting cast is already in place....

likemystylez
10-08-2015, 09:26 AM
Celtics. Lakers are a mess.

well neither team is gonna win anytime soon, but the lakers are still the lakers and kobe is close to retiring and freeing up his ridiculous salary. Celtics are def better right now- but unless they are serious contenders int he next 2-3 yrs- id say its a pick em. Lakers have shown the ability to turn things around really really fast

jerellh528
10-08-2015, 06:06 PM
Since when did the Celtics become "def better right now"? Didn't lakers win more games last year in a tougher conference? Also adding Russell, Randle, Kobe, hibbert, bass, and the 6th man Lou. I haven't been following the celts but what have they done to push them past the lakers as the better team?

NFLNBA
10-08-2015, 08:20 PM
Lakers. Russell, Randle, Clarkson that's a great young core and they have krazy $$$ to spend next couple years

kobe4thewinbang
10-09-2015, 02:37 AM
Lakers. Celtics were awful for much longer and post-Shaq era had a couple of poor seasons but Lakers gave Suns a tough fight soon after and then Lakers won two titles again with Gasol. New core shows promise, and Celtics need a star player and skill evolution from their young players. I say 3-5 seasons and Lakers will be in the mix again.

Vinylman
10-09-2015, 08:33 AM
Neither will win a championship ever again.

Spurs will remain a dynasty. And joining them will be; Golden State, Houston and Washington (when KD joins).

Over the next 10 years those four teams will have 8 of the 10 rings. Warriors get 2 more (3 total), Houston get 2 (back to back), Washington get 2 and Spurs get 2.

The other 2 belong to Cleveland (1) and New Orleans (Davis goes full blown Chamberlain).

Or maybe none of this will ever happen. But since we're speculating based on nothing. I'm sticking with it.


rarely used but absolutely appropriate in this case

:facepalm:

Oefarmy2005
10-09-2015, 11:53 AM
Lakers, because I bet this thread was started by a closet Celts fan. Both will suck for the next decade though.

PatsSoxKnicks
10-10-2015, 12:09 AM
Since when did the Celtics become "def better right now"? Didn't lakers win more games last year in a tougher conference? Also adding Russell, Randle, Kobe, hibbert, bass, and the 6th man Lou. I haven't been following the celts but what have they done to push them past the lakers as the better team?

Seriously?......I would think the Celtics winning almost twice as many games as the Lakers would qualify as "def better right now" (Celts won 40 games, Lakers won 21).

Most of those additions are either too young to do anything (Russell, most rookies don't make much of an impact on their teams), too old to do anything (Kobe with his horrible shot selection and selfish attitude despite being nowhere near the player he was 3 years ago) or just not very good (Bass, Lou). The Lakers will be competing for another high pick this year. Even they know that. (Though not too high since the Sixers own their pick if it's top 3)

MonroeFAN
10-10-2015, 06:05 AM
Yeah sorry brother jerrell, I dunno where those #'s came from.

Regardless I think Boston is basically maxed out and La has nicer pieces to work with so I'll go with the lakers.

Chronz
10-11-2015, 12:24 AM
Since when did the Celtics become "def better right now"? Didn't lakers win more games last year in a tougher conference? Also adding Russell, Randle, Kobe, hibbert, bass, and the 6th man Lou. I haven't been following the celts but what have they done to push them past the lakers as the better team?

They got rid of Rondo. Lakers added Kobe..... jk jk... seriously tho its pretty close.

FlashBolt
10-11-2015, 02:12 AM
Since when did the Celtics become "def better right now"? Didn't lakers win more games last year in a tougher conference? Also adding Russell, Randle, Kobe, hibbert, bass, and the 6th man Lou. I haven't been following the celts but what have they done to push them past the lakers as the better team?

I have Lakers being the most likely to win the championship next mainly because the Celtics haven't won a thing other than that lone ring the past century or what-not. Most of their rings came at a time in which it probably won't happen again. Destination might not mean as much since people can market themselves easily these days but I do think LAL offers a much bigger lifestyle for many free agents. But...

1) Celtics had almost twice Lakers wins.
2) Celtics have a better coach.
3) Celtics seems to be rebuilding while Lakers keep building on Kobe.

Those are probably three reasons why Celtics is a better team NOW.

da ThRONe
10-11-2015, 08:19 AM
As much as it pains me to say it's the Lakers here. LA is still a much bigger FA destination than Boston. Plus LA is more likely to be bad enough in the 2-3 seasons to get another high pick to team with Randle, Russell, and Clarkson.

MonroeFAN
10-11-2015, 08:27 AM
3) Celtics seems to be rebuilding while Lakers keep building on Kobe.


They still likely have better young talent. I'm guessing Boston will have another rebuild on their hands soon.

mightybosstone
10-11-2015, 10:22 AM
I may be in the minority here, but I kind of think that common sense right now would dictate that Boston would have the better chance. The Celtics are the better run organization, have a superior coach and more talent. They also
play in a far inferior conference. Look at the contenders in the East and most of the superstar players in Cleveland, Miami and Chicago will be well past their primes in five years. Look at the contenders in the West, and many of those teams may just be getting started.

The wild card here is obviously free agency and the ability to attract marquee free agents. But the Lakers had chances this summer and came up empty in a big way. This isn't the same Lakers team of the past 20 years everybody remembers. Shaq and Phil are gone. Kobe is done. The allure of playing in LA isn't the same without any key pieces on the table to build around. Is LA still the more likely destination for big time free agents? Of course, but free agency is a total crapshoot, and it takes more than one superstar to build a great franchise. The odds are definitely stacked against the Lakers at this point.

All that being said, I honestly don't think either of these franchises winning a title in the next decade. The West is just too stacked with young talented teams, and even if the East's best teams start to seriously regress in the next 5-7 years, Boston doesn't currently have a young superstar on that squad to build around. This is probably going to be similar to that stretch in the 90s where neither team was particularly relevant.

mightybosstone
10-11-2015, 10:27 AM
Since when did the Celtics become "def better right now"? Didn't lakers win more games last year in a tougher conference? Also adding Russell, Randle, Kobe, hibbert, bass, and the 6th man Lou. I haven't been following the celts but what have they done to push them past the lakers as the better team?

In what universe did the Lakers "win more games" than the Celtics last season? I'm totally confused by this point. They are certainly in a tougher conference, but they didn't come remotely close to the Celtics win total.

jerellh528
10-11-2015, 11:32 AM
In what universe did the Lakers "win more games" than the Celtics last season? I'm totally confused by this point. They are certainly in a tougher conference, but they didn't come remotely close to the Celtics win total.

Yeah my bad I googled NBA standings and the first thing that popped up was the 2014 season for some reason. Sue me lol. But I still consider the lakers as the better team than Boston.

DillyDill
10-11-2015, 12:14 PM
We're not the better team than Boston at the moment but we have a brighter future with our young prospects and cap flexibility. I'm happy about that alone

Raps18-19 Champ
10-11-2015, 01:34 PM
Lakers easily.

ROY 2 MVP Braun
10-11-2015, 03:17 PM
While the Lakers can attract FAs don't the Celtics own the Nets 1st round pick like 2 more times In The next 3 years? The Nets could end up giving them top 5 range picks. So that's 2 chances to nab a superstar or at least a all star if not 2 to build their franchise around. So I think it closer than ppl assume. I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure they are still owed a 1st or 2 from the Nets

hugepatsfan
10-11-2015, 03:31 PM
While the Lakers can attract FAs don't the Celtics own the Nets 1st round pick like 2 more times In The next 3 years? The Nets could end up giving them top 5 range picks. So that's 2 chances to nab a superstar or at least a all star if not 2 to build their franchise around. So I think it closer than ppl assume. I could be wrong about this but I'm pretty sure they are still owed a 1st or 2 from the Nets

We have BRK's picks unprotected in 2016 and 2018, as well as the option to swap spots with them in 2017.

Unfortunately, I don't think those picks will be top 5. I think they'll be somewhere in the back half of the lottery, probably around 10 or so.

slumber
10-11-2015, 06:03 PM
Hate both teams. But probably Boston

mightybosstone
10-11-2015, 07:22 PM
Yeah my bad I googled NBA standings and the first thing that popped up was the 2014 season for some reason. Sue me lol. But I still consider the lakers as the better team than Boston.

That's pretty presumptuous, dude. You're talking about a team that made the playoffs in the East and played essentially .500 basketball. The Lakers won 21 games. We have no idea how good this young Lakers team will be, but they're not going to win twice as many games overnight. Especially in the deep Western Conference. Even teams that draft superstar, future Hall of Fame players rarely make that big of a jump their rookie seasons.

Mave1002
10-11-2015, 11:46 PM
That's pretty presumptuous, dude. You're talking about a team that made the playoffs in the East and played essentially .500 basketball. The Lakers won 21 games. We have no idea how good this young Lakers team will be, but they're not going to win twice as many games overnight. Especially in the deep Western Conference. Even teams that draft superstar, future Hall of Fame players rarely make that big of a jump their rookie seasons.

I'm calling it now:

If D'Angelo Russell averages 15 dimes per game (yes, we don't need him to score beyond ten if he could do that) then the Lakers could get past the Celtics in 5 years time.

PraiseJesus
10-12-2015, 12:03 AM
Lakers

FlashBolt
10-12-2015, 12:58 AM
Lakers aren't the better team than the Celtics right now but this is about who will win first. I think Lakers will attract a big time free agent capable of leading a team to a ring before the Celtics. Who has the better team now is irrelevant. Lakers don't need to rebuild if they can grab a hold of an elite superstar. Celtics isn't a very attractive location right now, tbh.

ILLUSIONIST^248
10-12-2015, 04:26 AM
Lakers will win a championship within 5 years.

mightybosstone
10-12-2015, 08:55 AM
Lakers will win a championship within 5 years.

I would bet you every penny I have to my name that doesn't happen. The odds are insanely unlikely.

mightybosstone
10-12-2015, 08:58 AM
I'm calling it now:

If D'Angelo Russell averages 15 dimes per game (yes, we don't need him to score beyond ten if he could do that) then the Lakers could get past the Celtics in 5 years time.
15? I would have to go back and look, but I'm guessing there are very few (if any) seasons in NBA history where a player averaged 15 assists per game.

But if Russell reaches his potential, I do like the Lakers chances to be a better team in a few years. He's a great prospect and Boston doesn't have really any star prospects on its roster.

MonroeFAN
10-12-2015, 09:12 AM
One can only hope the 15 APG thing is a joke.

xbrackattackx
10-12-2015, 10:21 AM
One can only hope the 15 APG thing is a joke.

Lakers fan just high off that win last night. He got 11 dimes in no time. He is gonna be a monster at passing. But even cp3 didn't avg. that. He was looking sharp last night though. But I say he avgs 6-9 and that's not bad. He should only get better.

PraiseJesus
10-12-2015, 10:34 AM
15? I would have to go back and look, but I'm guessing there are very few (if any) seasons in NBA history where a player averaged 15 assists per game.

But if Russell reaches his potential, I do like the Lakers chances to be a better team in a few years. He's a great prospect and Boston doesn't have really any star prospects on its roster.

Dshow is a legendary passer, let's be clear about this

But he's also a scorer (shot 41% from 3 on 7 attempts per game in college)

ILLUSIONIST^248
10-12-2015, 02:44 PM
Lakers will win a championship within 5 years.

I would bet you every penny I have to my name that doesn't happen. The odds are insanely unlikely.

I'm not a big enough dick to take someones last 200 dollars. The lakers will be back to championship form In 3 years book it .

D-Leethal
10-12-2015, 02:59 PM
Might as well start a thread asking "hey post your random guess for the mega millions tonight" or "what number should I bet on the roulette table this weekend?"

FlashBolt
10-12-2015, 03:27 PM
15 APG????? That has never happened before...

McAllen Tx
10-12-2015, 07:59 PM
Not only will the Lakers win a ship before the Celtics they will hang banner #17 before the Clippers hang #1

PraiseJesus
10-12-2015, 08:15 PM
Byron Scott Uses Magic Johnson Analogy To Describe D’Angelo Russell

“I think you’ve got to let his instincts kind of take over,” Scott said about Russell after Monday’s practice. “I think guys are starting to realize that when they don’t think they’re open, sometimes he thinks you are and you’ve got to be ready for it. It was the same with Magic, when he came down the court, you made sure that your hands were ready and that you were looking at him, because even if he wasn’t looking at you, he could fire a pass to you. D’Angelo has a lot of that type of instinct in him. I think the guys are learning that when they’re playing with him, to always be ready.”

Lakers have the next all time great in their hands so they will obviously win first

FlashBolt
10-12-2015, 09:31 PM
Lakers have the next all time great in their hands so they will obviously win first

Depends on whether or not Kobe is there tbh. I don't think LAL will win with Kobe on the team just because he's a liability on the defensive end and his age has clearly caught up with him in terms of what he can do offensively as well. Will Kobe be satisfied with being a catch-and-shoot player? Don't think he can adjust to that as well as some people think. Russell can definitely pass but so can Rubio. Dude needs to be a 20 PPG scorer/5 RPG/8 RPG if Lakers are going anywhere.

LAKERMANIA
10-13-2015, 02:58 PM
As of right now I'd say the Lakers have the better chance because I like the Russell/Randle/Clarkson core moving forward. But that can change if a couple of things happen for the Celtics: (1) they land a top tier rookie in the draft this year since they have Brooklyn's pick; and/or (2) they trade for a superstar that wants to be traded with all the picks and young players they have.

Celtics play in an easier conference and have a better coach so they have more of an opportunity of making the playoffs while rebuilding. But I do like Russell and Randle and I think as long as those two develop and become legit young future all stars/superstars, the Lakers will be able to attract more talent.

hugepatsfan
10-13-2015, 05:08 PM
I think the Celtics are going the HOU route. Playoff team that's in "purgatory" but with the flexibility to capitalze on opportunities so not fully stuck there like most teams. They'll keep shuffling the pieces to stay in that semi-comptitive place while still keeping their flexibility. Then when a guy becomes available, they'll be in position to capitalize.

It would have already started with Love except for the rare case of CLE. Usually the team with the #1 pick like that would be rebuilding and not willing to give it up for a guy like Love. Lebron going there was a unique set of circumstances. If not for that, I think BOS would have landed him.

mightybosstone
10-15-2015, 07:21 AM
I'm calling it now:

If D'Angelo Russell averages 15 dimes per game (yes, we don't need him to score beyond ten if he could do that) then the Lakers could get past the Celtics in 5 years time.

I actually went back and checked this number to be sure. I was right. There has never been a single player in the history of the NBA average 15 assists per game. Stockton has five of the six highers per season numbers in NBA history and the highest he ever got was 14.54. In fact, he's the only guy to top 14, and he only did it twice.

All you're asking is for Russell to be essentially the greatest ball distributing point guard in NBA history as a rookie. That's totally reasonable, right?

mightybosstone
10-15-2015, 07:32 AM
I'm not a big enough dick to take someones last 200 dollars. The lakers will be back to championship form In 3 years book it .

I assure you I have more $200 to my name. I am married, so I have that whole "dual incomes" thing going for me. But you are aware that what you're saying is pretty insane, right? Right now the Lakers have nothing more than two prospects that have yet to prove anything on the court and one all-time great who is three years removed from playing competent basketball.

They play in arguably the toughest conference in all of professional sports, and they're probably the 11th or 12th best team (that might be generous) in the conference. Even if they DO add a superstar player or two in the next 3-4 years or Randle and Russell do reach their potential, they'll have to contend with other stacked young rosters in the West. And then there's a couple of stacked teams in the East you still have to worry about.

I know this is probably a surprise to you, but you're spoiled as a Lakers fan. You're used to winning championships, but that's not an easy task in a league with 29 other teams. Even when you're a contender, you're going into the postseason with like (at best) 1 in 5 odds of winning a championship. Hell, even the Lakers have only won two titles in the last 13 years, and they did that with two Hall of Fame players in their primes and one of the greatest coaches in NBA history. Right now they have none of that.

There's a difference between hoping that your franchise is going in the right direction and just blind faith with no evidence to back it up. You're going to be in for a very rude awakening over the next few years. Bank on it.

hugepatsfan
10-15-2015, 01:16 PM
^ He did say "championship form" which I think implies contender status, not neccesarily actually winning it. Also, he said in 3 years so I don't think he's saying what they have now is good enough. Seems to be strongly expecting some noise in free agency, which really isn't unrealistic if him IMO.

Let's say the Lakers get a lottery pick this year and take a good SF. Westbrook signs with them in free agency. Russell traded to SAC for Cousins if that thing blows up like a lot of people expect. Randle becomes a solid starting PF and Clarkson builds off of a good rookie season. All very realistic IMO and would have them in championship form w/in 3 years.

mightybosstone
10-15-2015, 03:09 PM
^ He did say "championship form" which I think implies contender status, not neccesarily actually winning it. Also, he said in 3 years so I don't think he's saying what they have now is good enough. Seems to be strongly expecting some noise in free agency, which really isn't unrealistic if him IMO.

Let's say the Lakers get a lottery pick this year and take a good SF. Westbrook signs with them in free agency. Russell traded to SAC for Cousins if that thing blows up like a lot of people expect. Randle becomes a solid starting PF and Clarkson builds off of a good rookie season. All very realistic IMO and would have them in championship form w/in 3 years.
You missed the previous post where he said the Lakers would win a title in five years. By "championship form," I think he means actually winning a title.

FlashBolt
10-15-2015, 08:39 PM
People need to stop with the Lakers/Celtics acting like they are going to rule the NBA again like the old days. The rate at which you won those championships will NEVER happen again. NBA is a huge market for any team right now. Players that did care no longer care about going to a certain place because it's "that" place. You're going to need more than that to convince a guy to sign with your team.

mike_noodles
10-15-2015, 08:48 PM
I can't believe the results of the poll, I think Lakers fans are stuffing the ballot box.

Ty22Mitchell
10-15-2015, 09:45 PM
This boils down to superstars to me, whoever gets one first has the better chance. Boston's problem relative to this question is that that their only means of acquiring superstars is through the draft or bundling their picks together for a trade. In addiction the picks Boston has had haven't been top 5 picks. I don't care much talent they have on that roster, there isn't a single potential superstar on it. And you can't win championships without superstars (or rather it is very difficult). I agree with one of the earlier posters (I forgot who it was), Boston is headed into purgatory.

Lakers have a lot going for them. They're young and bad (which is a good combination), may be able to get one more high pick (after the Philly thing), and attract free agents. Based on those three things I'm choosing LA.

Ty22Mitchell
10-15-2015, 09:49 PM
I think the Celtics are going the HOU route. Playoff team that's in "purgatory" but with the flexibility to capitalze on opportunities so not fully stuck there like most teams. They'll keep shuffling the pieces to stay in that semi-comptitive place while still keeping their flexibility. Then when a guy becomes available, they'll be in position to capitalize.

It would have already started with Love except for the rare case of CLE. Usually the team with the #1 pick like that would be rebuilding and not willing to give it up for a guy like Love. Lebron going there was a unique set of circumstances. If not for that, I think BOS would have landed him.

Agreed. Ainge has done a great job, but one could argue he's played the rebuild a little too safe. They need to find their marquee guy.