Just imagine not winning the Finals for a second.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #21 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Mon May 26, 2008 12:46 pm

frankdatank wrote:
Losing in the finals for me would be bitter. Lakers taking a lead on us in championships. Jackson overtaking a record that Red loved.

we would still have one more championship than the Lakers 16 to 15
Phil would pass Red with 10

But lets worry about IF that happens, and thats a big if since we are in control of this series and I have a tough time seeing the Lakers beating us in a 7 game (cross-country) series

Lakers would only have 10 championships. The Minny ones don't count, and this isn't just coming from me, multiple national sportswriters throughout the years have said this. It's only since they won those 3 from 2000-2003 that Lakers fans and writers have added the Minny ones so it'd get them closer to the C's. They didn't even hang a banner commemorating the Minny titles in LA until 5 or so years ago.

**** the Lakers, by the way.

spf211 · Post #22 » by **spf211** » Mon May 26, 2008 1:59 pm

Two things --

Yes, a loss to the Lakers in the Finals would be more insulting than a loss to any other team for the Celtics; possibly one of the worst series loss in franchise history.

No, it does not allow the Lakers to overtake the Celtics in championship titles. The Lakers currently have 14, the Celtics have 16. Additionally, five of those titles for the Lakers came when they still played in Minneapolis. Los Angeles fans would argue that those count, but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say those championships don't count as the Lakers are now viewed as "LA's Team" and are identified with the city at the same, if not higher, level as the Celtics and Knicks.

The difference here being, the Celtics and Knicks have always played in their respective home cities -- not true with the Lakers. Just look at the name -- Lakers! We all know Los Angeles doesn't have lakes.

What a loss in the Finals does mean is that Phil Jackson overtakes Red Auerbach in number of titles won. This is the second worst insult a Celtic franchise could suffer -- made worse only by virtue of the fact that Boston will be playing the Lakers and therefore have a chance to deny Jackson this achievement.

It is one thing if Jackson goes out and beats some hapless Eastern Conference team to surpass Auerbach -- but to surpass Auerbach by beating the Celtics, a year after Red passed away, possibly on the court now named in honor of Red? The organization, from top to bottom, needs to understand the historical significance of a Celtic/Laker Finals this year.

Jackson is unfit to dethrone Auerbach for a number of reasons -- his titles are split between two teams (Chicago and LA), Red's titles are all with the Celtics; Red fully constructed the Celtic franchise in three different eras, Jackson has coached and won in two -- but it cannot be argued the massive impact Auerbach had on the game while Jackson was nothing more than a Zen-driver for some of the game's greatest talents.

On a talent level I think the Lakers/Celtics this year are very close to a wash -- it's difficult to say when players like Lamar Odom and Ray Allen are disappearing nightly -- but the coaching disparity is very disturbing and clearly a Laker edge. The Celtics will need a similar advantage, hopefully emotional once they realize what is at stake.

But there should be no "happy to be there" sentiment. If the Celtics face the Lakers, if the franchise any respect left for itself, it's a must-win series. Realize that a number of championships can always sway back and forth between Los Angeles and Boston, but no one will ever be able to resurrect Auerbach to get him another ring; Phil Jackson must be stopped.

ermocrate · Post #23 » by **ermocrate** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:05 pm

spf211 wrote:Two things --

Yes, a loss to the Lakers in the Finals would be more insulting than a loss to any other team for the Celtics; possibly one of the worst series loss in franchise history.

No, it does not allow the Lakers to overtake the Celtics in championship titles. The Lakers currently have 14, the Celtics have 16. Additionally, five of those titles for the Lakers came when they still played in Minneapolis. Los Angeles fans would argue that those count, but I think it's a reasonable assumption to say those championships don't count as the Lakers are now viewed as "LA's Team" and are identified with the city at the same, if not higher, level as the Celtics and Knicks.

The difference here being, the Celtics and Knicks have always played in their respective home cities -- not true with the Lakers. Just look at the name -- Lakers! We all know Los Angeles doesn't have lakes.

What a loss in the Finals does mean is that Phil Jackson overtakes Red Auerbach in number of titles won. This is the second worst insult a Celtic franchise could suffer -- made worse only by virtue of the fact that Boston will be playing the Lakers and therefore have a chance to deny Jackson this achievement.

It is one thing if Jackson goes out and beats some hapless Eastern Conference team to surpass Auerbach -- but to surpass Auerbach by beating the Celtics, a year after Red passed away, possibly on the court now named in honor of Red? The organization, from top to bottom, needs to understand the historical significance of a Celtic/Laker Finals this year.

Jackson is unfit to dethrone Auerbach for a number of reasons -- his titles are split between two teams (Chicago and LA), Red's titles are all with the Celtics; Red fully constructed the Celtic franchise in three different eras, Jackson has coached and won in two -- but it cannot be argued the massive impact Auerbach had on the game while Jackson was nothing more than a Zen-driver for some of the game's greatest talents.

On a talent level I think the Lakers/Celtics this year are very close to a wash -- it's difficult to say when players like Lamar Odom and Ray Allen are disappearing nightly -- but the coaching disparity is very disturbing and clearly a Laker edge. The Celtics will need a similar advantage, hopefully emotional once they realize what is at stake.

But there should be no "happy to be there" sentiment. If the Celtics face the Lakers, if the franchise any respect left for itself, it's a must-win series. Realize that a number of championships can always sway back and forth between Los Angeles and Boston, but no one will ever be able to resurrect Auerbach to get him another ring; Phil Jackson must be stopped.

I'm not sure that LA is going to the finals and I'm not sure they defend...we got 16 titles.

bdawg · Post #24 » by **bdawg** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:07 pm

for a good share of people on this board,
winning the championship: yay Let's Go Celtics
if we lose: trade garnett, trade ray allen, trade paul pierce, fire doc, our d suck

spf211 · Post #25 » by **spf211** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:12 pm

Red Auerbach on Phil Jackson:

"Phil obviously is a good coach, you don't win that many games without being a good coach. One thing, though. He's been very fortunate. He picks his spots. That's all I can say. Larry Brown doesn't pick his spots. He's a great coach."

Auerbach said he did not hear from Jackson or receive any get-well messages from the Lakers' coach while he was hospitalized during the summer and early fall, first for an intestinal blockage, then for internal bleeding caused by a cyst, and a third time after fluid built up in his lungs from post-surgical inactivity. The latter ailment kept the 88-year-old Auerbach hospitalized almost three weeks.

Auerbach also took a swipe at both Brown and Jackson for taking over teams coming off miserable seasons.

"Phil Jackson, they've got a pretty good ballclub out there, but he's got his built-in excuse. Larry Brown, whatever he does is a plus, so they've got everything going for them," Auerbach said. "You could have taken -- I won't say anybody, but you can take any knowledgeable coach and put them in those situations, and they can't do any worse. If L.A. doesn't make the playoffs, it's building. If New York doesn't make the playoffs, we're building, you know?"

Jackson on Red:

I think what I