uPtoWnNY said:

Cerebus said:

First, I can't compare Shaq to centers from another time, only the ones he actually played against. In that regard he is easily top five. Maybe top three. Reasonable?

Ummmm...no. Wilt, Russell and Kareem are the holy trinity of NBA centers. After them, there's everyone else, in whatever order you want. Like I said earlier, opinions are based on when you started following the sport. I just get ticked when I hear NBA fans dismiss the league history before Magic & Bird.

Dude, I'm not trying to get in your shit, but posts/conversations like this are why I'm giving up on the org and the internet at large. I've said at least twice, maybe three times, that I can't compare players from different eras. In the sentence that you quoted above I qualify my question by saying "only the ones he actually played against. In that regard..." I think I'm givin' up on this one.

AND I disagree about your statement regarding "opinions being based on when you started watching the sport". I got into the game on my own the year Jordan was drafted, but grew up with a Grandfather who was a HARD CORE Laker fan/Celtics hater. Moved to the Bay Area during the Jordan years and have been a Warriors fan first ever since. However, NONE of that matters if you put even the slightest little bit of effort into learning about players from earlier eras. Which I've done extensively over the last fifteen years. That's WHY I say I can't compare players from one era to the next. The game is not the same. The players aren't the same. The training isn't the same. The rules and officiating aren't the same. Shit, the COURT isn't even the same.

It annoys me when people put these older players on a pedestal to justify their basketball knowledge when they haven't even seen them play and there isn't even more than a handful of highlights on them.

Let's be real. Numbers don't lie, but don't sit around acting like you sat and watched Bill Russell in his prime.

@Cerebus- I do think opinions on this subject are usually based on the era you are familiar with.

4example: I have noticed that players who were around b4 Jordan tend to say that someone like Wilt or Kareem are the greatest ever while the new generation is all Jordan.

Fuck it though, my hairline is still intact.

minneapolisFunq said:

It annoys me when people put these older players on a pedestal to justify their basketball knowledge when they haven't even seen them play and there isn't even more than a handful of highlights on them.

Let's be real. Numbers don't lie, but don't sit around acting like you sat and watched Bill Russell in his prime.

@Cerebus- I do think opinions on this subject are usually based on the era you are familiar with.

4example: I have noticed that players who were around b4 Jordan tend to say that someone like Wilt or Kareem are the greatest ever while the new generation is all Jordan.

So, we're supposed to completely ignore history? By your logic, I'm bound to say Bush will forever be a better president than Teddy Roosevelt because I saw him on CNN? That Clinton was a better president than FDR because I remember his administration?

Of course not. Because you can look at a player's body of work and rank their accomplishments accordingly. This isn't a matter of justifying knowledge, it's a matter of being honest.

If you can't do that or choose not to do that, that's your prerogative.

minneapolisFunq said:

namepeace said:

So, we're supposed to completely ignore history? By your logic, I'm bound to say Bush will forever be a better president than Teddy Roosevelt because I saw him on CNN? That Clinton was a better president than FDR because I remember his administration?

Of course not. Because you can look at a player's body of work and rank their accomplishments accordingly. This isn't a matter of justifying knowledge, it's a matter of being honest.

If you can't do that or choose not to do that, that's your prerogative.

About two months ago, SLAM magazine put out a top 500 players list ever, yeah 500. I'll post the top 100.

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Bill Russell
4. Shaquille O'Neal
5. Oscar Robertson
6. Magic Johnson
7. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
8. Tim Duncan
9. Larry Bird
10. Kobe Bryant
11. Jerry West
12. Elgin Baylor
13. Hakeem Olajuwon
14. Bob Petit
15. Moses Malone
16. Julius Erving
17. John Havlicek
18. Karl Malone
19. Isaiah Thomas
20. Charles Barkley
21. Rick Barry
22. John Stockton
23. Elvin Hayes
24. Bob Cousy
25. David Robinson
26. Kevin McHale
27. Scottie Pippen
28. Jason Kidd
29. George Mikan
30. Kevin Garnett
31. LeBron James
32. Willis Reed
33. Wes Unseld
34. Nate Thurmond
35. Dolph Schayes
36. Walt Frazier
37. Patrick Ewing
38. Jerry Lucas
39. Gary Payton
40. Allen Iverson
41. Billy Cunningham
42. Clyde Drexler
43. Dominique Wilkins
44. Dave Cowens
45. George Gervin
46. Bob McAdoo
47. Earl Monroe
48. Dennis Rodman
49. Dwyane Wade
50. Steve Nash
51. Walt Bellamy
52. Tiny Archibald
53. Dennis Johnson
54. Reggie Miller
55. Dirk Nowitzki
56. Connie Hawkins
57. Dave Bing
58. James Worthy
59. Hal Greer
60. Pete Maravich
61. Jack Twyman
62. Bob Lanier
63. David Thompson
64. Joe Fulks
65. Sam Jones
66. Gus Johnson
67. Robert Parish
68. Tommy Heinsohn
69. Bernard King
70. Bill Sharman
71. Paul Arizin
72. Lenny Wilkens
73. Alonzo Mourning
74. Bill Walton
75. Neil Johnston
76. Dave DeBusschere
77. Paul Pierce
78. Joe Dumars
79. Ray Allen
80. Chris Webber
81. Ed Macauley
82. Alex English
83. Adrian Dantley
84. Artis Gilmore
85. Cliff Hagan
86. Dwight Howard
87. Tim Hardaway
88. Chris Mullin
89. Mitch Richmond
90. Sidney Moncrief
91. Bobby Dandridge
92. Bob Love
93. Jim Pollard
94. Spencer Haywood
95. Dikembe Mutombo
96. Pau Gasol
97. Tracy Mac
98. Grant Hill
99. Vince Carter
100. Buck Williams

Being president is always being president. It has absolutely nothing to do with a sport that has changed greatly from one decade to the next over the last 60 years. If people don't understand how much the game and the players who play it have changed since the 50s then they really need to do some more reading on the topic.

What you guys are comparing is stats, plain and simple. I'm telling you, in no uncertain terms, that if you put the best ten players from the 50s in a time machine and sent them to play in 2011, they would get destroyed! And if you sent the best ten players we have now back to the 50's they would dominate. Does that mean the players now are "better"? No, it doesn't. It means the GAME is DIFFERENT.

Whatever, all I care about now is how awesomely ridiculous that LeBron picture is.

Cerebus said:

Being president is always being president. It has absolutely nothing to do with a sport that has changed greatly from one decade to the next over the last 60 years. If people don't understand how much the game and the players who play it have changed since the 50s then they really need to do some more reading on the topic.

What you guys are comparing is stats, plain and simple. I'm telling you, in no uncertain terms, that if you put the best ten players from the 50s in a time machine and sent them to play in 2011, they would get destroyed! And if you sent the best ten players we have now back to the 50's they would dominate. Does that mean the players now are "better"? No, it doesn't. It means the GAME is DIFFERENT.

Whatever, all I care about now is how awesomely ridiculous that LeBron picture is.

You have to compare players with the competition they played against. Would George Mikan be a start in 2011, probably not, but he dominated the league in the late 40s to the mid 50s. But than, you have some players who can play ain any era.

I have no doubt that Jerry West or Oscar Roertson could play in the league today, but Bob Coucy, who was an All-Star around the same time, I'm not too sure.

I do know for a fact that WILT CHAMBERLAIN can play in any era. A 34 year old Wilt way past his prime, on two bum knee's shut down a young and mobine Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Kareem was still an All-Star in 1989. HE dropped a 40 point game on Patrick Ewing in like 87 or 88.

namepeace said:

minneapolisFunq said:

It annoys me when people put these older players on a pedestal to justify their basketball knowledge when they haven't even seen them play and there isn't even more than a handful of highlights on them.

Let's be real. Numbers don't lie, but don't sit around acting like you sat and watched Bill Russell in his prime.

@Cerebus- I do think opinions on this subject are usually based on the era you are familiar with.

4example: I have noticed that players who were around b4 Jordan tend to say that someone like Wilt or Kareem are the greatest ever while the new generation is all Jordan.

So, we're supposed to completely ignore history? By your logic, I'm bound to say Bush will forever be a better president than Teddy Roosevelt because I saw him on CNN? That Clinton was a better president than FDR because I remember his administration?

Of course not. Because you can look at a player's body of work and rank their accomplishments accordingly. This isn't a matter of justifying knowledge, it's a matter of being honest.

If you can't do that or choose not to do that, that's your prerogative.

Lol

What a terrible analogy.

Simply put: Politics and THE GAME OF BASKETBALL are not the same.

+When did I say anything about ignoring history? Don't spin my comments to fit your stupid agenda.

AND YOU STILL DODGED MY MAIN POINT!!!!! I love how uptownny jumped on that post because he/she has been running around dickriding these old players and discrediting the modern era.

It's like we're not allowed to place anyone above the "legends" or we lose all credibility.

No. First of all, there is not a single greatest player.

There are too many variables.

minneapolisFunq said:

namepeace said:

So, we're supposed to completely ignore history? By your logic, I'm bound to say Bush will forever be a better president than Teddy Roosevelt because I saw him on CNN? That Clinton was a better president than FDR because I remember his administration?

Of course not. Because you can look at a player's body of work and rank their accomplishments accordingly. This isn't a matter of justifying knowledge, it's a matter of being honest.

If you can't do that or choose not to do that, that's your prerogative.

Lol

What a terrible analogy.

Simply put: Politics and THE GAME OF BASKETBALL are not the same.

+When did I say anything about ignoring history? Don't spin my comments to fit your stupid agenda.

AND YOU STILL DODGED MY MAIN POINT!!!!! I love how uptownny jumped on that post because he/she has been running around dickriding these old players and discrediting the modern era.

It's like we're not allowed to place anyone above the "legends" or we lose all credibility.

No. First of all, there is not a single greatest player.

There are too many variables.

Bullshit. I'm not discrediting the modern era. I just don't feel the quality of NBA ball is what it used to be during the early 70s and the 80s to the early 90s. And what you call "dickriding" I call respect and acknowledgment. Damn right I'm not putting any of these young players above the NBA immortals like Wilt, West, Magic or Larry. Let them do something first. Can we wait until their careers are finished and stop all this "anointing" shit? At other sites, I see Dirk/Bird comparisons - I'm like, are you kidding me?

WFAN's Mike Francesca had a great line. He said the biggest winner of the NBA finals was Michael Jordan. He'll never hear the LeBron comparisons again.

uPtoWnNY said:

minneapolisFunq said:

Lol

What a terrible analogy.

Simply put: Politics and THE GAME OF BASKETBALL are not the same.

+When did I say anything about ignoring history? Don't spin my comments to fit your stupid agenda.

AND YOU STILL DODGED MY MAIN POINT!!!!! I love how uptownny jumped on that post because he/she has been running around dickriding these old players and discrediting the modern era.

It's like we're not allowed to place anyone above the "legends" or we lose all credibility.

No. First of all, there is not a single greatest player.

There are too many variables.

My, listen to the hit dog holler.

Your "main point" was lost among your insults and poor composition. I doubt you even remember what it is.

Those who ignore history look stupid when they try to give authoritative opinions on any subject. History is relevant to the discussion regardless of whether one actually lived through it. And that's in any context, young man: politics, athletics, or music.

This whole line of discussion involves the history of the game. You got it right, in your own way, when you said that people's opinions are formed largely on bias and personal observation. But your little rant criticized people who actually do the opposite, when they take prior history into account. And that's what I was talking about; that was the reason I asked you the questions I did.

You were so hot and bothered, however, that you didn't answer the questions.. So to rephrase:

1) How does history figure into discussion?

2) Do you believe that we are disqualified from listing players we did NOT see play?

and a new question,

3) Which contemporary players would you elevate above the "legends"?

uPtoWnNY said:

minneapolisFunq said:

Lol

What a terrible analogy.

Simply put: Politics and THE GAME OF BASKETBALL are not the same.

+When did I say anything about ignoring history? Don't spin my comments to fit your stupid agenda.

AND YOU STILL DODGED MY MAIN POINT!!!!! I love how uptownny jumped on that post because he/she has been running around dickriding these old players and discrediting the modern era.

It's like we're not allowed to place anyone above the "legends" or we lose all credibility.

No. First of all, there is not a single greatest player.

There are too many variables.

Bullshit. I'm not discrediting the modern era. I just don't feel the quality of NBA ball is what it used to be during the early 70s and the 80s to the early 90s. And what you call "dickriding" I call respect and acknowledgment. Damn right I'm not putting any of these young players above the NBA immortals like Wilt, West, Magic or Larry. Let them do something first. Can we wait until their careers are finished and stop all this "anointing" shit? At other sites, I see Dirk/Bird comparisons - I'm like, are you kidding me?

WFAN's Mike Francesca had a great line. He said the biggest winner of the NBA finals was Michael Jordan. He'll never hear the LeBron comparisons again.

This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

You truly believe that basketball in 2011 isn't up to par?

The level of althleticism and skill in todays game is uncomparable to the days of old.

Regardless of which team you were supporting, this years finals matchup was one of the all time greatest. I have never seen so many highlight plays in a single finals game, let alone an entire series.

+ U don't consider Shaq one of these "immortals"? hmm.

@namepeace lol! U want to talk about POOR COMPARISON lololol. wow

I'm ghost like facekilla. I'll leave U with this.

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/06/21/heat-riley.ap/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt2

Pat Riley reaffirms that he will not return to coaching

Posted Jun 21 2011 10:57AM - Updated Jun 21 2011 1:19PM

MIAMI (AP) -- Pat Riley expects better days are ahead for the Miami Heat.

Speaking Tuesday, more than a week after the Heat season ended with a loss to the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA finals, Miami's team president said that not winning the title was a disappointment - but insisted the season still had plenty of successes.

"I'll say it. I'm not afraid to say it," Riley said at his annual end-of-season availability. "We are going to be multiple contenders, OK? I have no problem saying that. We will contend. That's all it's about. When you have a team that can contend for a championship, that's what you want, because then you have a shot at winning.

"I know what everybody expected here, but it didn't happen," Riley added. "But we had a great season."

Riley said the team would add more pieces to complement LeBron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh next season, plus was looking forward to seeing what can happen with a healthy Udonis Haslem and Mike Miller, both of whom had their 2010-11 campaign marred by injuries.

He also said Erik Spoelstra would coach, shooting down any notion that the Hall of Famer was considering a return to the bench.

"No, I'm not going to," Riley said.

Riley ended his Hall of Fame coaching career in 2008, before tapping Spoelstra as his replacement. Spoelstra has a 148-98 record in three regular seasons, along with a 18-15 mark in postseason play.

"It doesn't mean that I don't have the fire," Riley said. "But we have a great young coach here and I want to support him and hope that he can grow like I did. This is just his third year."

Riley said he expects Miami's so-called "Big 3" to get better during the offseason as well, noting that Bosh will likely add some bulk in the weight room and that James wants to do more to round out his game, which has already earned him two MVP awards.

"He's the most unique player in the NBA and we're blessed to have him," Riley said of James, adding that too much of the criticism for the team's loss to Dallas in the NBA finals went his way.

Riley called the way last summer went, when he helped convince the three All-Stars to team up in Miami, one of the highlights of the season for both Miami and the NBA.

"The greatest thing in the history of South Florida sports was those guys coming together," Riley said. "With the exception of the (undefeated 1972) Dolphins. Maybe."

And he does expect that Miami, which has the first pick in the second round, No. 31 overall, can get better in Thursday night's draft.

"My take on it is that we're going to pick 31," Riley said. "I'm not so sure we're going to spend $3 million to move up."

1. The broken record statement about not returning to coach, followed by a "but I still have the fire" changes nothing in my mind. I still believe he will take over the Heat at some point.

2. "noting that Bosh will likely add some bulk in the weight room and that James wants to do more to round out his game" Interesting, and both of them would help the team as a whole. I'm not sure I can picture Bosh getting much bigger, though. Just doesn't seem like a good fit for him. James, on the other hand - if he really does work on free throws, a couple of new post moves and his mid-range... well... they'd probably have won this year if he had those skills.

Hot rumor - Pau Gasol and draft picks to the T'Wolves for Kevin Love. From what I heard, there's a big rift between Pau and Kobe. I do not make that deal if I'm the Wolves.

@minneapolis - We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything NBA. I love Shaq, he's all-time great, but I don't put him on Bill Russell's level

uPtoWnNY said:

Hot rumor - Pau Gasol and draft picks to the T'Wolves for Kevin Love. From what I heard, there's a big rift between Pau and Kobe. I do not make that deal if I'm the Wolves.

@minneapolis - We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything NBA. I love Shaq, he's all-time great, but I don't put him on Bill Russell's level

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

728huey said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Hot rumor - Pau Gasol and draft picks to the T'Wolves for Kevin Love. From what I heard, there's a big rift between Pau and Kobe. I do not make that deal if I'm the Wolves.

@minneapolis - We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything NBA. I love Shaq, he's all-time great, but I don't put him on Bill Russell's level

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

Exactly. Gotta hold on to Love.

Sporting News named the NBA's top ten greatest teams of all time, with the 1996 Bulls coming in at number one. The full top ten were as follows:

1. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
2. 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers
3. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
4. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
5. 1964-65 Boston Celtics
6. 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers
7. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
8. 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks
9. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
10. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons

I'd put Wilt's Lakers first, and sub the '69-'70 Knicks for the Pistons. Otherwise, the list is fine.

uPtoWnNY said:

728huey said:

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

Exactly. Gotta hold on to Love.

Sporting News named the NBA's top ten greatest teams of all time, with the 1996 Bulls coming in at number one. The full top ten were as follows:

1. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
2. 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers
3. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
4. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
5. 1964-65 Boston Celtics
6. 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers
7. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
8. 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks
9. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
10. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons

I'd put Wilt's Lakers first, and sub the '69-'70 Knicks for the Pistons. Otherwise, the list is fine.

The 96 Bulls team isn't even the best Bulls team, 92 was better.This is bassically goin by numbers. They had 70 wins that season so 70 > 67. But 92 was a way tougher league than it was in 96. First , there are two new teams in the league in their first season of play. The great player those 93 Bulls faced primed out before Mike did. Ewing, Drexler, Wilkins, Barkley were not the same players. Olajuwon, Malone, Stockton fell off slightly, but not as much as the other 3 I named.

728huey said:

uPtoWnNY said:

Hot rumor - Pau Gasol and draft picks to the T'Wolves for Kevin Love. From what I heard, there's a big rift between Pau and Kobe. I do not make that deal if I'm the Wolves.

@minneapolis - We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything NBA. I love Shaq, he's all-time great, but I don't put him on Bill Russell's level

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

Interesting...

I agree with both of you about keeping Love, unless they know right now they aren't going to be willing to give him a max extenstion and are looking to get something in return. I was thinking the same thing regarding Gasol, too, because he and Rubio are both from Spain.

This is just a rumor (one I haven't heard yet), but I could see the Kobe/Pau rift part being true. Even though they used to be tight, you could see the tension building in the playoffs this season and we all know how Kobe behaves when he's decided he doesn't like a teammate.

If this happened, I wonder how this would/could play into Dwight Howard ending up in LA? Would Love just get traded to Orlando? Or would they have no interest in Howard if they got Love?

Cerebus said:

728huey said:

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

Interesting...

I agree with both of you about keeping Love, unless they know right now they aren't going to be willing to give him a max extenstion and are looking to get something in return. I was thinking the same thing regarding Gasol, too, because he and Rubio are both from Spain.

This is just a rumor (one I haven't heard yet), but I could see the Kobe/Pau rift part being true. Even though they used to be tight, you could see the tension building in the playoffs this season and we all know how Kobe behaves when he's decided he doesn't like a teammate.

If this happened, I wonder how this would/could play into Dwight Howard ending up in LA? Would Love just get traded to Orlando? Or would they have no interest in Howard if they got Love?

Bynum, Odom, Shannon Brown for Dwight.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Cerebus said:

Interesting...

I agree with both of you about keeping Love, unless they know right now they aren't going to be willing to give him a max extenstion and are looking to get something in return. I was thinking the same thing regarding Gasol, too, because he and Rubio are both from Spain.

This is just a rumor (one I haven't heard yet), but I could see the Kobe/Pau rift part being true. Even though they used to be tight, you could see the tension building in the playoffs this season and we all know how Kobe behaves when he's decided he doesn't like a teammate.

If this happened, I wonder how this would/could play into Dwight Howard ending up in LA? Would Love just get traded to Orlando? Or would they have no interest in Howard if they got Love?

Bynum, Odom, Shannon Brown for Dwight.

Well, that works in theory, but I think Bynum and Odom are more important to the team than that. Especially Odom, who always does whatever he's asked and never complains about it. From what I've read he's got a real calming affect on the whole team. So it's hard for me to imagine the Lakers with Love and Howard, less Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Brown. Kobe, Dwight and Love don't make a complete team. Now, if they could FINALLY get a special PG back in the mix, maybe it would work. But I'm still not really feelin' it.

Edit: Because I spelled Kobe with a y.

[Edited 6/21/11 19:49pm]

uPtoWnNY said:

728huey said:

It seems like an uneven trade to me as well, but the T'wolves are finally getting Ricky Rubio from Spain who they drafted two years ago, and they may use Pau Gasol as a mentor to him. Having said that, the T'wolves need to build around Kevin Love.

Exactly. Gotta hold on to Love.

Sporting News named the NBA's top ten greatest teams of all time, with the 1996 Bulls coming in at number one. The full top ten were as follows:

1. 1995-96 Chicago Bulls
2. 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers
3. 1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers
4. 1985-86 Boston Celtics
5. 1964-65 Boston Celtics
6. 1966-67 Philadelphia 76ers
7. 1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers
8. 1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks
9. 1991-92 Chicago Bulls
10. 1988-89 Detroit Pistons

I'd put Wilt's Lakers first, and sub the '69-'70 Knicks for the Pistons. Otherwise, the list is fine.

Man that 1981-1982 Lakers team was great too. I would go as far as to say probably the

best i seen from top to bottom. That was the real Showtime. Those guys would fastbreak

you until your draws fell off.

Cerebus said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Bynum, Odom, Shannon Brown for Dwight.

Well, that works in theory, but I think Bynum and Odom are more important to the team than that. Especially Odom, who always does whatever he's asked and never complains about it. From what I've read he's got a real calming affect on the whole team. So it's hard for me to imagine the Lakers with Love and Howard, less Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Brown. Kobe, Dwight and Love don't make a complete team. Now, if they could FINALLY get a special PG back in the mix, maybe it would work. But I'm still not really feelin' it.

Edit: Because I spelled Kobe with a y.

[Edited 6/21/11 19:49pm]

Thats who you gonna have to give up to get the best center in the league,.

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Cerebus said:

Well, that works in theory, but I think Bynum and Odom are more important to the team than that. Especially Odom, who always does whatever he's asked and never complains about it. From what I've read he's got a real calming affect on the whole team. So it's hard for me to imagine the Lakers with Love and Howard, less Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Brown. Kobe, Dwight and Love don't make a complete team. Now, if they could FINALLY get a special PG back in the mix, maybe it would work. But I'm still not really feelin' it.

Edit: Because I spelled Kobe with a y.

[Edited 6/21/11 19:49pm]

Thats who you gonna have to give up to get the best center in the league,.

Not if they still have Gasol to offer in the package.

phunkdaddy said:

Man that 1981-1982 Lakers team was great too. I would go as far as to say probably the

best i seen from top to bottom. That was the real Showtime. Those guys would fastbreak

you until your draws fell off.

Yup, that Laker team was no joke, I would rank that 81-82 squad as the best Laker team from the 80's

Abdul said:

phunkdaddy said:

Man that 1981-1982 Lakers team was great too. I would go as far as to say probably the

best i seen from top to bottom. That was the real Showtime. Those guys would fastbreak

you until your draws fell off.

Yup, that Laker team was no joke, I would rank that 81-82 squad as the best Laker team from the 80's

But the later teams were much tougher. They had to be, after what happened to LA in the '84 Finals against Boston.

Two of my favorite squads were the '76-'77 Blazers and the '78-'79 Sonics. They epitomized team ball. The Sonics were fun as hell to watch, led by the brilliant play of Gus 'The Wizard' Williams, Dennis Johnson and 'Downtown' Freddie Brown. Shit, they would have won back-to-back titles if DJ didn't pull a John Starks in Game 7 of the '78 Finals.

The Blazers were better the year after they won the title. At one point, they were 50-10, 50-5 with Walton in the lineup. But once Big Red went down, that was it.

LittleBLUE is right. The first three-peat Bulls were better top-to-bottom(and faced tougher competition) than the second three-peat Bulls. I'd say the '91-'92 squad was the best.

uPtoWnNY said:

Hot rumor - Pau Gasol and draft picks to the T'Wolves for Kevin Love. From what I heard, there's a big rift between Pau and Kobe. I do not make that deal if I'm the Wolves.

@minneapolis - We'll just have to agree to disagree on everything NBA. I love Shaq, he's all-time great, but I don't put him on Bill Russell's level

I've heard the Gasol-Love rumors, but I don't do the Gasol trade unless I absolutely have to. He's got 2-3 good years left, and his skill set meshes with Kobe's game very well. LA needs to address its point guard needs above all else, and Bynum is the piece you trade, not Gasol. Bynum is a walking game of Russian Roulette, you never know when he's going to go down.

If I could get Chris Paul and Trevor Ariza for a Bynum-Brown-and maybe even LO package I'd do that.

Cerebus said:

LittleBLUECorvette said:

Bynum, Odom, Shannon Brown for Dwight.

Well, that works in theory, but I think Bynum and Odom are more important to the team than that. Especially Odom, who always does whatever he's asked and never complains about it. From what I've read he's got a real calming affect on the whole team. So it's hard for me to imagine the Lakers with Love and Howard, less Gasol, Bynum, Odom and Brown. Kobe, Dwight and Love don't make a complete team. Now, if they could FINALLY get a special PG back in the mix, maybe it would work. But I'm still not really feelin' it.

Edit: Because I spelled Kobe with a y.

[Edited 6/21/11 19:49pm]

Your point about PG is dead on. I would put together a package for a top-flight point guard, not D12. Because D12 will be the guy chasing around the Bareas and Westbrooks who blow by LA's "1". The game is shifting more towards PGs anyways. If you get D12 you're not getting help where needed, unless you just want a healthier center.

Speaking of health, Bynum is essential to LA's defensive and rebounding efforts. If Bynum played well, LA was virtually unbeatable for the last 3 seasons, until the Dallas Debacle. But that was under PJ. Fact of the matter is that since 2007 he's missed chunks of each season, the 2008 playoffs, essentially the 2009 playoffs, and was occasionally effective in the 2010 playoffs. Gasol is more skilled and is the better health risk. Based on Bynum's history, another injury is inevitable. There is perhaps no better chance to ditch an injury-riddled player for a superstar in recent history.

If you are going to make a move for D12, Bynum makes sense too. Bynum and D12 aren't going to mesh any better than Bynum and Gasol did. D12 and Gasol could play VERY well together and D12 will give you more games in the regular season.

As uPtoWnNY implied, the only reason you trade Gasol is if the rift with Kobe is irreparable.

Only 1 of the Lakers' 3 big men should be moved. I agree with you that I'd probably trade Odom last.

uPtoWnNY said:

Abdul said:

Yup, that Laker team was no joke, I would rank that 81-82 squad as the best Laker team from the 80's

But the later teams were much tougher. They had to be, after what happened to LA in the '84 Finals against Boston.

Two of my favorite squads were the '76-'77 Blazers and the '78-'79 Sonics. They epitomized team ball. The Sonics were fun as hell to watch, led by the brilliant play of Gus 'The Wizard' Williams, Dennis Johnson and 'Downtown' Freddie Brown. Shit, they would have won back-to-back titles if DJ didn't pull a John Starks in Game 7 of the '78 Finals.

The Blazers were better the year after they won the title. At one point, they were 50-10, 50-5 with Walton in the lineup. But once Big Red went down, that was it.

LittleBLUE is right. The first three-peat Bulls were better top-to-bottom(and faced tougher competition) than the second three-peat Bulls. I'd say the '91-'92 squad was the best.

I agree. It's scary to say, but the 85 and 87 teams were complete than the 82 title team.

Re: the Bulls teams, the 91 Lakers, 92 Blazers and 93 Suns were deeper and more athletic than the 97 and 98 Jazz. But the 96 Sonics may have been the best overall team CHI faced in the Finals. They took a 72-10 team to six games. That's impressive.