It's official - Kobe demands a trade

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, 32

User avatar

All Star
Posts: 3040
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:26 am
not to be clintonesque, here, but both points of view on the spurs make sense. They have been the most consistently good team over the past decade by far, but they have never put together even 2 championships in a row, and would anybody bet their life savings the spurs would have beaten the Suns if the league hadn't fucked up so royally with the suspensions? So they may win an asterisk title this year, not having at all convinced fans they were the best team. 99 was a strike season, so even if they win this year, 2 of their 4 rings will have asterisks. Great team? Absolutely and TD is a top ten all-time player. Dynasty? not if it means being THE truly dominant team for 4-5 years.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21967
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:27 am
I understand where you are coming from and that is why the definition (as I read some 8 years ago) was a team that has won 3 straight is a dynasty team. A team that has won say, 4 or 5 in 6 or 7 years may also be seen as a dynasty team. Everyone has their own definition really
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:02 am
Winning 4 titles in 6 or 7 years means that somewhere along the line, at least once, the team has won back-to-back titles. The Spurs have never done that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen. He had the amazing luck of coming into the league, as one of the most dominant players, with a future hall-of-fame tutor, RIGHT as Michael Jordan left. To me, you can interchange Duncan with Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton, or Willis Reed and still get the same result. This takes nothing away from Duncan; as every player I listed is an all-time great. I'm just saying... history will go to show him being better than he actually was because Duncan's got more rings than he should have.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life-saving that if you put Patrick Ewing from 1985 into a time machine and dropped him off in 1999, the Spurs would have (rightfully) taken Ewing. And Ewing would probably have back-to-back titles, at some point in his career... not to mention winning at least 4 rings. Hell, if Ewing was blessed with Duncan's situation, people would probably be regarding Ewing as the 'best center of all-time'...

Tim Duncan is great... but he's not any better than Robinson, Walton, Reed, or Ewing were. The only difference is the situation. Tim lucked out. Ewing didn't.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 11:26 am
32 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen.


That's Kobe. Talk about luck. Drafted by the Lakers to play with Shaq in his prime, right after the Bulls dinasty (which was enough to grant him 3 rings)... and hasn't been able to make it to the second round since Shaq left.
User avatar

Moderator
Posts: 13751
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 3:42 pm
TMC wrote:
32 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen.


That's Kobe. Talk about luck. Drafted by the Lakers to play with Shaq in his prime, right after the Bulls dinasty (which was enough to grant him 3 rings)... and hasn't been able to make it to the second round since Shaq left.

You're right. Kobe is equally as lucky as Tim Duncan.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21967
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:29 pm
TMC wrote:
32 wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen.


That's Kobe. Talk about luck. Drafted by the Lakers to play with Shaq in his prime, right after the Bulls dinasty (which was enough to grant him 3 rings)... and hasn't been able to make it to the second round since Shaq left.



:D Hit the nail on the head! Kobe is now too arrogant and stupid to get back to the nba heights.

Duncan may have had Robinson on his team but he became the BEST player on that team! That can't be said for any other rookie that came to a team that had a superstar. Duncan has made it all happen! Even with the powerful Lakers threepeat machine with megasuccessful coach Phil Jackson leading the way, the Spurs pushed them in those three years and then ousted them to get their second championship. Duncan has since won one championship in the three years following Robinson's retirement and will likely make it 2 in 4 years, 3 in 5 overall! Since Robinson's departure actually he has only had the help of real talent in Parker and Ginobili, both who had close to no nba experience and were young. Duncan is an alltime great and the likes of Garnett, Shaq and everyone really will agree
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2557
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 9:41 pm
32 wrote:Winning 4 titles in 6 or 7 years means that somewhere along the line, at least once, the team has won back-to-back titles. The Spurs have never done that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen. He had the amazing luck of coming into the league, as one of the most dominant players, with a future hall-of-fame tutor, RIGHT as Michael Jordan left. To me, you can interchange Duncan with Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton, or Willis Reed and still get the same result. This takes nothing away from Duncan; as every player I listed is an all-time great. I'm just saying... history will go to show him being better than he actually was because Duncan's got more rings than he should have.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life-saving that if you put Patrick Ewing from 1985 into a time machine and dropped him off in 1999, the Spurs would have (rightfully) taken Ewing. And Ewing would probably have back-to-back titles, at some point in his career... not to mention winning at least 4 rings. Hell, if Ewing was blessed with Duncan's situation, people would probably be regarding Ewing as the 'best center of all-time'...

Tim Duncan is great... but he's not any better than Robinson, Walton, Reed, or Ewing were. The only difference is the situation. Tim lucked out. Ewing didn't.


Actually I think Duncan has less rings than he should have. He's two baskets away from having the 2004 and 2006 championships (fisher shot, any extra two points in any of three close mavs losses), so he could easily be 5-peating this year. He arguably had the least supporting cast of any champ in the history of the game in 2003, and would probably have about 3-5 MVPs if he played 40 minutes per game and was a flashy player.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21967
» Fri Jun 01, 2007 10:20 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:
32 wrote:Winning 4 titles in 6 or 7 years means that somewhere along the line, at least once, the team has won back-to-back titles. The Spurs have never done that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Tim Duncan is the luckiest player I've ever seen. He had the amazing luck of coming into the league, as one of the most dominant players, with a future hall-of-fame tutor, RIGHT as Michael Jordan left. To me, you can interchange Duncan with Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Bill Walton, or Willis Reed and still get the same result. This takes nothing away from Duncan; as every player I listed is an all-time great. I'm just saying... history will go to show him being better than he actually was because Duncan's got more rings than he should have.

As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet my life-saving that if you put Patrick Ewing from 1985 into a time machine and dropped him off in 1999, the Spurs would have (rightfully) taken Ewing. And Ewing would probably have back-to-back titles, at some point in his career... not to mention winning at least 4 rings. Hell, if Ewing was blessed with Duncan's situation, people would probably be regarding Ewing as the 'best center of all-time'...

Tim Duncan is great... but he's not any better than Robinson, Walton, Reed, or Ewing were. The only difference is the situation. Tim lucked out. Ewing didn't.


Actually I think Duncan has less rings than he should have. He's two baskets away from having the 2004 and 2006 championships (fisher shot, any extra two points in any of three close mavs losses), so he could easily be 5-peating this year. He arguably had the least supporting cast of any champ in the history of the game in 2003, and would probably have about 3-5 MVPs if he played 40 minutes per game and was a flashy player.



I wasn't going to include all the real possibilities but fair enough Pest :wink:
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Sat Jun 02, 2007 3:43 am
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Actually I think Duncan has less rings than he should have. He's two baskets away from having the 2004 and 2006 championships (fisher shot, any extra two points in any of three close mavs losses), so he could easily be 5-peating this year. He arguably had the least supporting cast of any champ in the history of the game in 2003, and would probably have about 3-5 MVPs if he played 40 minutes per game and was a flashy player.


Which is a disgrace, as I particularly don't like the Spurs... but right now I'm forced to root for them because of Duncan. :wink:
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2557
» Sat Jun 02, 2007 11:46 am
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Actually I think Duncan has less rings than he should have. He's two baskets away from having the 2004 and 2006 championships (fisher shot, any extra two points in any of three close mavs losses), so he could easily be 5-peating this year. He arguably had the least supporting cast of any champ in the history of the game in 2003, and would probably have about 3-5 MVPs if he played 40 minutes per game and was a flashy player.


Which is a disgrace, as I particularly don't like the Spurs... but right now I'm forced to root for them because of Duncan. :wink:

Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:06 pm
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.


Well, I want Duncan to win another ring... and I'd hate to see the Spurs win another ring. Ain't an easy pick. I'll go with TD, but it's like pulling teeth...
User avatar

All Star
Posts: 2557
» Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:07 pm
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.


Well, I want Duncan to win another ring... and I'd hate to see the Spurs win another ring. Ain't an easy pick. I'll go with TD, but it's like pulling teeth...

yeah, that's what my take will be if the Pistons make the finals. I feel that Duncan is a top 11 player all time and I'd like him have the rings to show for it.
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 21967
» Sat Jun 02, 2007 8:20 pm
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.


Well, I want Duncan to win another ring... and I'd hate to see the Spurs win another ring. Ain't an easy pick. I'll go with TD, but it's like pulling teeth...



I also want Duncan to get another championship but to be honest, what Lebron and the Cavs ared oing is so inspirational that if they won it I wouldn't be disappointed
User avatar

Hall of Famer
Posts: 18315
» Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:38 am
migya wrote:
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.


Well, I want Duncan to win another ring... and I'd hate to see the Spurs win another ring. Ain't an easy pick. I'll go with TD, but it's like pulling teeth...



I also want Duncan to get another championship but to be honest, what Lebron and the Cavs ared oing is so inspirational that if they won it I wouldn't be disappointed


Well, as I don't particularly like the Cavs or Spurs, it's a choice between Duncan and Lebron... and Duncan wins that one pretty easily.
User avatar

Franchise Player
Posts: 9163
» Mon Jun 04, 2007 6:06 pm
TMC wrote:
migya wrote:
TMC wrote:
tHe_pEsTiLeNcE wrote:Why are you forced to root for them because of Duncan? I'll definitely be rooting for the Cavs against them for the upset.


Well, I want Duncan to win another ring... and I'd hate to see the Spurs win another ring. Ain't an easy pick. I'll go with TD, but it's like pulling teeth...



I also want Duncan to get another championship but to be honest, what Lebron and the Cavs ared oing is so inspirational that if they won it I wouldn't be disappointed


Well, as I don't particularly like the Cavs or Spurs, it's a choice between Duncan and Lebron... and Duncan wins that one pretty easily.


I'm with LeBron and "Boobie" on this one. The West is the best, but it's the Spurs. Not a "huge fan" with Texas teams such as eh... Cowboys? :wink:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests