what's the number four team in NBA history?

doozyj · Post #41 » by **doozyj** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:15 am

Lakers organization have 16 titles. It doesn't matter if the team moved etc. It's like saying Boston has less titles since the owners swapped organizations in 1978 and the Celtics titles from the 50s 60s don't count anymore. Organizations move, get sold, traded etc., the championships stay with them.

Post #42 » by **Hilltop** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 3:28 am

Number 4 team in NBA history? Well it's Raptors in 4, so I guess them.

KevinMcreynolds · Post #43 » by **KevinMcreynolds** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:51 am

betta1 wrote:8) Utah
9) Knicks
10) Bullets/Wizards

Your list was correct until these 3 teams.

SaveOurBullets · Post #44 » by **SaveOurBullets** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:59 am

Way to misinterpret what I said, everybody. Obviously the franchise can claim whatever they've won. But it's stupid for fans to cling to titles that they obviously didn't care less about when they happened, and now acting as if they were there rooting for the team all along. If the Lakers moved to Boise tomorrow, do you think the people in Boise would be gloating about "their" 16 championships?

Soap345 · Post #45 » by **Soap345** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:07 am

druggas wrote:
SaveOurBullets wrote:
corndog wrote:17 celtics
11 la lakers
6 bulls
5 minneapolis lakers

I love how LA fans love to pad their total by including those from Minneapolis. As if they cared when it happened.

Let me guess, everyone still loved the Lakers because Minnesota was the "furthest out west."

We don't "pad" our stats. The state of Minnesota didn't do anything for the Lakers that won championships for them. They were left without a home so we took them in. They're called the Lakers no matter where they played. Get over it.

LOL boston fans who dont understand/ try to diminish things.

When a franchise moves, its moves its assets with them.

Like a company who moves HQ's to another state, they dont lose assets. Its one/ the same franchise. Its not like it was an expansion team.

MY gosh, are the "New england Patriots" a different team then "Boston Patriots?"

If the answer is "no, because they did not move cities. Ok I will follow that up with, How about the COwboys and their new stadium? THey no longer play in dallas. Its Arlington tx. Are they a new franchise? DO they no longer have their old super bowls?

Spurtatcus · Post #46 » by **Spurtatcus** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 5:10 am

The answer is easily the Spurs. Hell, they could make a case for being the #3 team as well because they have the hardware and were relevant longer than the Bulls.

SeniorWalker · Post #47 » by **SeniorWalker** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:10 am

Spurtatcus wrote:The answer is easily the Spurs. Hell, they could make a case for being the #3 team as well because they have the hardware and were relevant longer than the Bulls.

4>6.

Not clear dominance from '99 to '07 > Two three peats from 91'-98' only halted by the franchise player's self-imposed break for two years.

I get it. :roll:

Silverballer · Post #48 » by **Silverballer** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 6:32 am

microfib4thewin wrote:I have the Lakers at #1. Being irrelevant for 20 years is enough to put Boston in second place even though they have more titles.

+1

BillTheGOAT · Post #49 » by **BillTheGOAT** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:12 am

no matter how laker fans try to spin things,you still got 11 titles, which is not bad btw..and titles belong to cities not names, the minneapolis lakers titles are with minneapolis no matter what your organisation did to "move" them to LA, you can't just "move" titles to another city and take credit for them.

BossHoggin · Post #50 » by **BossHoggin** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:15 am

Lakers obviously have 16 titles. Disputing this shows a lack of intelligence in basic math and logic.

LAKESHOW · Post #51 » by **LAKESHOW** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:29 am

corndog wrote:17 celtics
11 la lakers
6 bulls
5 minneapolis lakers

ahahaha. nervous?

the 2 fan bases that are drinkin the big time HATERade is boston with their 17. and the bulls for their beloved ICON being taken over with 6 titles.

LGND2552 · Post #52 » by **LGND2552** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:38 am

corndog wrote:no matter how laker fans try to spin things,you still got 11 titles, which is not bad btw..and titles belong to cities not names, the minneapolis lakers titles are with minneapolis no matter what your organisation did to "move" them to LA, you can't just "move" titles to another city and take credit for them.

SMH...you're dumb. The LAKERS have 16 titles. 11 with LOS ANGELES. The Lakers have 16 titles. Saying the other 5 are irrelevant is stupid. You're probably younger than 30 anyway, so should we only count a handful of titles for the Celtics since you weren't a fan before? So if New Orleans moves to Kansas or whatever, any playoff appearance, any player that played in New Orleans, isn't considered as a part of the so called Kansas Hornets? So CP3's jersey shouldn't be hung in the rafters since he didn't play for them? By the logicc of the people on this forum, we shouldn't consider players of the Vancouver Grizzlies as a part of Memphis Grizzlies team history? Lol I'd laugh my ass off if the Celtics moved cities. Celtic fans would be such hypocrites.
Celtics fans so scared.

FANOFNBA · Post #53 » by **FANOFNBA** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 7:55 am

corndog wrote:no matter how laker fans try to spin things,you still got 11 titles, which is not bad btw..and titles belong to cities not names, the minneapolis lakers titles are with minneapolis no matter what your organisation did to "move" them to LA, you can't just "move" titles to another city and take credit for them.

wow at the stupidity. that makes no sense what so ever.

Stills12 · Post #54 » by **Stills12** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:09 am

1. Boston Celtics AND Los Angeles Lakers
3. Chicago Bulls
4. San Antonio Spurs
5. Detroit Pistons

It's too close to say who is the clear cut winner right now. On one hand Lakers have never dominated a decade like Celtics but then Lakers have never gone through a 20 year drought period. Then Lakers have been to the finals more times but there winning % is lower than the Celtics, who still have 1 more title then them....
You can go on about this all day long and still you won't have a clear cut winner.

Soap345 · Post #55 » by **Soap345** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:10 am

FANOFNBA wrote:
corndog wrote:no matter how laker fans try to spin things,you still got 11 titles, which is not bad btw..and titles belong to cities not names, the minneapolis lakers titles are with minneapolis no matter what your organisation did to "move" them to LA, you can't just "move" titles to another city and take credit for them.

wow at the stupidity. that makes no sense what so ever.

Its more willful ignorance then stupidity. They dont respond to any of the arguments. They just keep talking. This goes hand in hand with my theory that fans begin to take on the personalities of the on court personas of their team leaders.

I am willing to bet, most old time celtic fan, talking Bill to Larry generation would not be trying to come up with bs excuses. Their mentality is probably more like "well I guess we need to win more, so that we widen the gap between the Lakers and the Celtics." None of this "well the lakers moved cities, and even if I have no good reason to believe it, I am going to stick with the idea that the Lakers only have 11" nonsense. But hey, when the leader of your team is all bark, and the coach of your team makes excuses after excuse, its only natural for fans to act like that.

Losers Lament. Have fun with that.

LeBronte Jest · Post #56 » by **LeBronte Jest** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:36 am

microfib4thewin wrote:I have the Lakers at #1. Being irrelevant for 20 years is enough to put Boston in second place even though they have more titles.

This.

Scouta · Post #57 » by **Scouta** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:58 am

MrHalfwaythere wrote:
ginobiliflops wrote:raps

in 4

detomaso · Post #58 » by **detomaso** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 9:01 am

Let's let the LA dudes slap a few fake titles onto their real number of 11. After all, when anyone goes to LA don't they usually get fake lips, a fake nose, fake boobs...It's the city's specialty! :lol:

I think you go by titles. Keep it simple.

1. Boston
2. Bleached-straw-haired, Botoxed, Face-stretched, Plastic-boobed Lakers of LA
3. Chicago
4. All-natural, Scandinavian-blonde, Wholesome Lakers of Minnesota

Chosen01 · Post #59 » by **Chosen01** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:30 am

Raps in 4.

eric365 · Post #60 » by **eric365** » Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:08 pm

dreamwalker87 wrote:
Spurtatcus wrote:The answer is easily the Spurs. Hell, they could make a case for being the #3 team as well because they have the hardware and were relevant longer than the Bulls.

4>6.

Not clear dominance from '99 to '07 > Two three peats from 91'-98' only halted by the franchise player's self-imposed break for two years.

I get it.

What have done the bulls outside of 91'-98' ?
The spurs has had 3 periods of contending(Gervin, Robinson and Duncan eras). 19 playoff appearances in the last 20 seasons.

I know Hollinger is not always right but he has valid argument here for Spurs > Bulls on all time list :
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/ ... ings-Spurs

It's his All time franchise ranking :
TOP 10
* No. 1: Los Angeles Lakers
* No. 2: Boston Celtics
* No. 3: San Antonio Spurs
* No. 4: Chicago Bulls
* No. 5: Phoenix Suns
* No. 6: Philadelphia 76ers
* No. 7: Utah Jazz
* No. 8: Portland Trail Blazers
* No. 9: Indiana Pacers
* No. 10: Houston Rockets

I would just have the Pistons instead of Suns