Doomsday Scenario: Lakers or Nets?
- Thread starter BigSoxFan
- Start date
The Lakers have stood between the Celtics and a championship exactly twice in the last 34 years (assuming it doesn't happen this year). The Red Sox have to outplay the Yankees practically every year if they want a world series. The rivalry is as strong as can be for two teams in opposite conferences/leagues, but that's all. It isn't remotely comparable to Red Sox/Yankees, unless you're one of the people thinking that Lebron's greatest rival over the last 15 years was Kobe Bryant.
Who would you rank as the Celtics biggest rival / enemy?
34 years is a nice way to exclude most of the 1980s.
There is a reason ‘Beat LA’ is a routine chant in Boston
I'm not sure why people start counting in the Celts-Lakers rivalry from the mid-'80s. The Celts have faced the Lakers 12 times in the NBA Finals (once vs the Minn Lakers in 1959), and hold a 9-3 edge . FTR, the Yankees have faced the Dodgers 11 times in the World Series, with the MFY holding an 8-3 lead. However using the unusual '80s accounting convention, they've never met and don't have a rivalry.
Fuck the Lakers and the MFY.
Fuck the Lakers and the MFY.
Well because the Lakers never won until 1985. It wasn't rivalry, I guess. But mostly because if people writing thing, etc, count the Russell years they have to include Russell in the stats, discussions. ever notice how many stat memes or championship memes and articles etc arbitrarily eliminate Wilt and Bill? "Since 1980 only Michael Jordan has..."
Historically it's the lakers no question. In recent history, say for anyone under the age of 40? Probably Philly, whom they've met in the playoffs 21 times (more than any other playoff matchup in NBA history, not just for the Celtics), not to mention fighting for divisional dominance forever. It's always special when we play the Lakers in the playoffs (if for no other reason than it's the finals), but for the life of me, I can't prioritize rivalries in other conferences/leagues over teams in our own division that we fight with every year.
It's an interesting note that the Celtics' biggest rival in recent history is Lebron (by my count we've met him in the playoffs 7 times since 2008), and now he's a Laker.
Nets. Easy.
It's the goddamn Lakers. They stole a title from the C's because Perk got hurt, and because the refs called a billion FTs for them in the 4th. Fuck them forever. Nets have never won a title. Even if it IS Durant, Kyrie, and Harden, who cares?
IT'S THE GODDAMN LAKERS.
It's the goddamn Lakers. They stole a title from the C's because Perk got hurt, and because the refs called a billion FTs for them in the 4th. Fuck them forever. Nets have never won a title. Even if it IS Durant, Kyrie, and Harden, who cares?
IT'S THE GODDAMN LAKERS.
let’s go Suns, Bucks.
Edit: Gun to my head, it’s the Nets. If a team of unlikeable mercenaries wins, everyone will just roll their eyes and move on.
Edit: Gun to my head, it’s the Nets. If a team of unlikeable mercenaries wins, everyone will just roll their eyes and move on.
To me the only way the Lakers win is if they beat the crap out of the opponent. The deeper the playoffs go, the more of that is typically allowed; plus it IS the Lakers and that makes mayhem in this case more possible.
So, as much as I dislike the Nets, I'd probably root for them. The only caveat would be if the Spike Lee's of the world who frequent MSG suddenly show up in the front row at the Barclay Center wearing black and white instead of royal and orange. Your team lost, you had a nice run; go home, see you next year.
So, as much as I dislike the Nets, I'd probably root for them. The only caveat would be if the Spike Lee's of the world who frequent MSG suddenly show up in the front row at the Barclay Center wearing black and white instead of royal and orange. Your team lost, you had a nice run; go home, see you next year.
I think that Philadelphia is the correct answer. For all the reasons you gave. And when the Celtics were at their best - the 1960s and 1980s, the 76ers were also great.
These three seasons, Philly was the Warriors, not the Sixers, but still, it was Philly vs Boston
1959-60 - Boston #1, Philly #2, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1960-61 - Boston #1, Philly #2
1961-62 - Boston #1, Philly #2, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
In 1963-64, with the Warriors now in SF, Philly's new team was the 76ers
1964-65 - Boston #1, Philly #3, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1965-66 - Philly #1, Boston #2, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1966-67 - Philly #1, Boston #2, Philly beat Boston in the East finals
1967-68 - Philly #1, Boston #2, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1968-69 - Philly #2, Boston #4, Boston beat Philly in the East semis
1979-80 - Boston #1, Philly #2, Philly beat Boston in the East finals
1980-81 - Boston #1, Philly #2 (same record but Boston was the higher seed), Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1981-82 - Boston #1, Philly #2, Philly beat Boston in the East finals
1982-83 - Philly #1, Boston #2
1983-84 - Boston #1, Philly #2
1984-85 - Boston #1, Philly #2, Boston beat Philly in the East finals
1985-86 - Boston #1, Philly #2
So yeah, I'd say that truly, historically, Philadelphia has been Boston's biggest rival, not the Lakers.
There was a Tom Clancy novel about 30 years now about a terrorist setting off a nuclear bomb at the Super Bowl. I'm not exactly rooting for that outcome, but...
Lebron is the greatest player ever, and off the court he is the model for what you hope a professional athlete will be. Given his age, this is like watching Brady for me, only without having had him on the home team for most of his career. I want to enjoy greatness while it is still here, and see it celebrated. I would also enjoy seeing him get some revenge on Kyrie for the backhanded insult he threw out there once he got KD on his team. I'm team Lebron.
The worst part about this is that I...actually kind of want to see this series happen? As others have pointed out there would be a ton of compelling storylines and the basketball would be pretty good too barring any injuries.
But, yeah, can't root for the Lakers. I don't hate this iteration of the Lakers as much as, say, the Kobe-led teams - in part, of course, because the Celtics haven't faced them head-on in a Finals (yet) - but it's still the Lakers. Plus, at least in this millennium, the Lakers have had success basically by convincing stars from other teams to come play in sunny LA, so it would be amusing for them to get a taste of their own medicine and lose to the ultimate mercenary team in the Nets.
But, yeah, can't root for the Lakers. I don't hate this iteration of the Lakers as much as, say, the Kobe-led teams - in part, of course, because the Celtics haven't faced them head-on in a Finals (yet) - but it's still the Lakers. Plus, at least in this millennium, the Lakers have had success basically by convincing stars from other teams to come play in sunny LA, so it would be amusing for them to get a taste of their own medicine and lose to the ultimate mercenary team in the Nets.
Yeah, I get the idea that the Lakers are "traditional rivals"
But a traditional rival you rarely ever play in an important game is nothing like a team like the Yankees who you play 12% of your regular season games against, have to beat to win the division and if they are good probably have to beat in the playoffs.
The Lakers and the Celtics are rivals the same way the Steelers and Cowboys are rivals, both used to be really good once upon a time at similar times.
But a traditional rival you rarely ever play in an important game is nothing like a team like the Yankees who you play 12% of your regular season games against, have to beat to win the division and if they are good probably have to beat in the playoffs.
The Lakers and the Celtics are rivals the same way the Steelers and Cowboys are rivals, both used to be really good once upon a time at similar times.
Just 4 years ago, the Nets were reeling, feeling the effects of their disastrous trade with Boston. They were 28-54. Meanwhile, the Celtics had Kyrie Irving, Tatum, Brown, Horford, and finished 55-27.
Meanwhile...
Kyrie Irving was averaging 24.4 points for 55-27 Boston,
DeAndre Jordan was averaging 12.0 points and 15.2 rebounds for the Clippers,
Kevin Durant was averaging 26.4 points for the world champ Warriors,
James Harden was averaging 30.4 points for 65-17 (and overall #1 seed) Houston, and
Blake Griffin was averaging 21.4 points for the Clippers and Pistons.
If you had told me then that four years from that point, all five of those players would be on the freaking Brooklyn Nets, I'd have said you were completely frigging insane.
But here we are.
Meanwhile...
Kyrie Irving was averaging 24.4 points for 55-27 Boston,
DeAndre Jordan was averaging 12.0 points and 15.2 rebounds for the Clippers,
Kevin Durant was averaging 26.4 points for the world champ Warriors,
James Harden was averaging 30.4 points for 65-17 (and overall #1 seed) Houston, and
Blake Griffin was averaging 21.4 points for the Clippers and Pistons.
If you had told me then that four years from that point, all five of those players would be on the freaking Brooklyn Nets, I'd have said you were completely frigging insane.
But here we are.
You would have had LaMarcus Aldridge added to that list if not for the heart issues that ended his career.
I’d say Sean Marks has done a credible job. I remember when we had GM’s like this.
This is the type of silliness when people hope for the Yankees to get the wildcard because some other team maybe better in short series. Losing to Kyrie would stink, but it is nothing to the long term effects of the Lakers winning. The Lakes have had the super team thing going since the 60s when Wilt refused to go anywhere lese and then then Kareem pulled the same trick almost as soon as Wilt retired. Shaq, Howard, Ad have all pulled the same crap. Only Kobe's 5 year fantasy camp career end interrupted the constant flow of stars bailing out on their teams and going to the Lakers.
After all these recent Kyrie episodes, I kind of forgot (there's the reffing/getting calls thing but other reasons that I now forgot) why I hated Harden all this much.
This. Though I believe Kareem actually asked to go to NY but the Bucks decided they'd rather send him out of the conference instead.
Ah you're right. Turns out he did want to go to NY but they didn't have the picks to make it happen and were also tied up in maneuvers to sign George McGinnis.
https://theathletic.com/1793904/2020/12/10/kareem-abdul-jabbar-knicks/?article_source=search&search_query=jabbar
Funny you say that. I came around on Harden last year. I loved how he brought it at both ends against OKC, and it really kind of changed my opinion of him. Embiid taking over the title of biggest bullshit artist free throw creator probably helped too.
DJ looks like a very old 32 who isn’t interested in putting in the work to maintain his body. He’s looked awful defensively at times this year and after the Nets lost 3 straight a month ago he was removed from the rotation.......their next loss was G3 in Boston.
He's been one of the worst players in the league for a good stretch. He's on the roster because he's friends with the stars.
Credible was used as (I thought) an obvious understatement. My comment remembering when the Celtics had this type of GM was serious.
Griffin and Jordan are cheap examples, obviously, they’re not good players anymore.
They were fortunate that Kyrie and Durant wanted to play in NY together, that wasn’t Marks’ doing. Does he get credit for having the cap space available to get it done? Sure, though who else was he gonna pay leading up to that offseason, and the strength of that FA class made conserving cap an obvious play if your team wasn’t a contender.
The Harden trade was his best move of the ones you listed in terms of Marks’ skills as a GM. They got a superstar player for well under a dollar on the dollar. Houston was backed into a corner, but good on Marks for taking advantage of it.
But I gotta say that I do not see machinations here that merit envy on the part of opposing fanbases who have the fortune of following playoff teams.
They also drafted/signed really well.
Got LeVert for Thad Young
Got Joe Harris for nothing
Got Dinwiddie for nothing
Moved Bojan for the Jarrett Allen pick right before he was gonna get paid.
I agree with your point, but in fairness most of the modern numbers/formulas would seem to require data that simply wasn't tracked in the days of Russell/Wilt. On the broadcast the night Thompson went off with the offensive boards they kept saying the most in franchise history (in the playoffs?), but then kept adding the caveat that they didn't track blocks in Russell's day. They were manually adding the asterisk, which I thought was reasonable. (One of the other posters will correct me), but isn't 1980 a dividing line for a lot of BB stats - they simply don't have the data to go back further?
Marks worked the waiver wire like a champ. So many bad teams have the ability to do this but don't.
Getting Harris and Dinwiddie off waivers from the Magic and Bulls is crazy.
Getting Harris and Dinwiddie off waivers from the Magic and Bulls is crazy.
This is fair, Harris in particular remains a good player for them and LeVert obviously was their outgoing centerpiece in the Harden deal. I think he did a good job accumulating assets and cap and had the good fortune of being able to cash some of them in without fearing that the players wouldn’t bolt. This is sort of the same deal with Pelinka (though Marks has more pelts on his wall in terms of savvy acquisitions I think).
The Nets did do a good job building that team, but they also immediately tore all of that down when Kyrie/Durant signed, starting with firing Atkinson and then slowly shipping off all of the pieces except Harris. Kyrie and Durant didn't come to Brooklyn because they thought the team was awesome and they loved the job the organization did, they came to Brooklyn because they wanted to play/live in New York and call the shots.
Oh no doubt that's true... but... the Knicks offered the same chance.. not being a clown show has it's benefits. And they got the pieces for the Harden trade which was key (and set up the trade for Shamet and Brown who are in their rotation).
I am referring more to bleacher report, etc. Companies that take Nike money and have younger viewers get more likes, better responses by finding ways to say MJ, Lebron, Kobe are the goats, or hyping current players.
Half the Nets stars quit on their team to get there. Davis is the only dude who did that in LA. Advantage: Lakers.
That Houston valued so highly that they unloaded him for an expiring deal just to get out from under the contract.
I was visiting NYC during the Nets first season in Brooklyn. Bought my son a Nets shirt because the look was cool.
I’ve never bought a single piece of Lakers merchandise.
I don’t like the current Nets team. But I loathe the Lakers and have for 45 years, since I was old enough to understand what being a Celtics fan meant.
I’ve never bought a single piece of Lakers merchandise.
I don’t like the current Nets team. But I loathe the Lakers and have for 45 years, since I was old enough to understand what being a Celtics fan meant.
The Yankees
The Lakers
The Canadians.
Never, under any circumstances.
The Nets are an artificial team and have no chance of a dynasty. If they are lucky enough to win this year ( which I don't think they will) then they will be a mess by the end of next year.
Kyrie and/or Harden will do something stupid.
The Lakers
The Canadians.
Never, under any circumstances.
The Nets are an artificial team and have no chance of a dynasty. If they are lucky enough to win this year ( which I don't think they will) then they will be a mess by the end of next year.
Kyrie and/or Harden will do something stupid.
The Nets are just an annoying fucking mosquito buzzing in our ear at night.
But the Lakers are the 800 lg gorilla in our nightmares.
With luck the Suns will burn the Lakers and the Bucks swish the Nets and we will sleep peacefully once again.
But the Lakers are the 800 lg gorilla in our nightmares.
With luck the Suns will burn the Lakers and the Bucks swish the Nets and we will sleep peacefully once again.
Some of us voted for the meteor, but Suns are astronomically bigger and can do the job just as effectively.
