Celtics: 17, Lakers: 9

MyInsatiableOne · Post #1 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:22 pm

Celtics have 17 Titles, Lakers have 9....let's double them up next year!!!!

WHHHOOOOHOOOO!!!!

daveisceltics · Post #2 » by **daveisceltics** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Yeah, hopefully that will happen next season!

greenbeans · Post #3 » by **greenbeans** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:40 pm

technically it should be Boston:17 Los Angeles:9

seccom · Post #4 » by **seccom** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:52 pm

Technically it should be

Celtics: 17, Lakers: 14.

or

Boston 17, Los Angeles 9

Lakers had 5 Championship in the twin cities.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #5 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:56 pm

I get so irritated how the Lakers all of a sudden count the Minny titles...they never did until a few years ago when they hung a banner commemorating them in LA. It's almost as if they realized if they added them they'd be closer to the Celtics. All through the 80s and even when they won in the early 2000s, it was "the Lakers going for their 5th, 6th, 7th etc" title. Then when they were like "holy smokes, if we add the Minny 5, we're pretty close to Boston", *then* they commemorate them.

So Boston 17, LA 9...let's double 'em up next year!!

giambijuice · Post #6 » by **giambijuice** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:08 pm

that is one of the bigger fallacies in sports. LA trying to claim minny's championships ? what a joke !

Truthiracy · Post #7 » by **Truthiracy** » Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:42 pm

Boston Celtics - 17
Los Angeles Lakers - 9
Minnesota Timberwolves - 5

Fixed

The Corey's · Post #8 » by **The Corey's** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:07 am

wrong, it's 14.

Its the same exact franchise, just in a differnt location.

Dont be babies about this, if Boston for whatever god awful reason up and moved to another city, not only would I still follow them, but they would still have X amount of titles, so what if a franchise moves, it's still the same franchise.

I understand the sentiment, I just dont agree with it.

the Laker franchise has 14 titles, LA has 9 of them.

Post #9 » by **TMU** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:53 am

Why does it matter? Either way, the Celtics have more championships than the Lakers.

seccom · Post #10 » by **seccom** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:51 am

giambijuice wrote:that is one of the bigger fallacies in sports. LA trying to claim minny's championships ? what a joke !

Boston Garden Celtics 16
New Boston Garden Celtics 1
Minn Lakers 5
Los Angeles Forum Lakers 6
Los Angeles Staple Center Lakers 3

seccom · Post #11 » by **seccom** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:54 am

LucerneStDoggz wrote:Boston Celtics - 17
Los Angeles Lakers - 9
Minnesota Timberwolves - 5

Fixed

OK,

What happen to those championship before TimberWolves was a NBA team?

celtics792244 · Post #12 » by **celtics792244** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:38 am

I remember back in the 80's a friend of mine (Laker fan) had one of the cartoon T-shirts (like the ones the players where wearing on the VICTORY(!) parade) of the Lakers after they won it in '88. It had showed the players holding basketballs with the years in which LA won it. IT STARTED WITH 1972!!!

THAT franchise is trying to conjure up false championships nowadays, because it sure as hell didn't acknowledge them before.

BOSTON CELTICS
2008 NBA CHAMPIONS
COMING TO AGE: THE CHASE FOR BANNER 18

giambijuice · Post #13 » by **giambijuice** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:41 am

The Corey's wrote:wrong, it's 14.

Its the same exact franchise, just in a differnt location.

Dont be babies about this, if Boston for whatever god awful reason up and moved to another city, not only would I still follow them, but they would still have X amount of titles, so what if a franchise moves, it's still the same franchise.

I understand the sentiment, I just dont agree with it.

the Laker franchise has 14 titles, LA has 9 of them.

location, location ,location. hey, if LA wants to take credit for what a team in minnesota did, fine. in my eyes, that's weak. for me, the LA lakers have 9 basketball championships

dwestside · Post #14 » by **dwestside** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:17 am

It all depends on what you pledge your allegiance to. Do you pledge your allegiance to the city or to the franchise? I know my grandfather used to root for the Braves even after they moved to Atlanta, and I would imagine most would follow their team no matter where they went.

Here's a worthy historical question: were the Boston Celtics and Minnesota Lakers rivals? That might change the frame of the debate a bit. Might not ...

seccom · Post #15 » by **seccom** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:21 am

celtics792244 wrote:I remember back in the 80's a friend of mine (Laker fan) had one of the cartoon T-shirts (like the ones the players where wearing on the VICTORY(!) parade) of the Lakers after they won it in '88. It had showed the players holding basketballs with the years in which LA won it. IT STARTED WITH 1972!!!

THAT franchise is trying to conjure up false championships nowadays, because it sure as hell didn't acknowledge them before.

BOSTON CELTICS
2008 NBA CHAMPIONS
COMING TO AGE: THE CHASE FOR BANNER 18

Really, is there a Lake in Los Angeles?

sox839 · Post #16 » by **sox839** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:44 am

It is still the same franchise i would feel different if they had changed there name from the lakers to something else and those championships that the lasker franchise won in minneapolis should have been honored years ago. I'm no fan of the laskers but as a fan of basketball those mineapolis laker teams were the first great team in nba history. The laker franchise decided to just put a smack down on george mikan and not recognize those teams which he led to 5 championships until he was very old and most members of those teams had passed on. Also the los angeles lakers although they recognized those teams still did give them the proper honor as they only recognized all five championships with one banner and the Lakers should have retired mikans number. Fortunately the celtics recognize there great players even guys who played with the celtics and didn't win a title like ed macauley who was later traded for bill russell.

Taget · Post #17 » by **Taget** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:40 am

The Minneapolis years count. The same Mikan team in Minnesota went with them to LA. It's not like they moved while the team was at rock bottom and their was no continuity between the championship calibre team in Minnesota and the one in LA. Or they changed names or identities.

DarkAzcura · Post #18 » by **DarkAzcura** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:47 am

If you really want to make an argument that those 5 don't count...you could possibly make the argument that the "modern" era of basketball didn't start until the shot clock was introduced...all of the Minny Laker championships came before the shot clock was introduced I'm pretty sure.

Other then that..the championships belong to the franchise not the city.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #19 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:00 pm

celtics792244 wrote:I remember back in the 80's a friend of mine (Laker fan) had one of the cartoon T-shirts (like the ones the players where wearing on the VICTORY(!) parade) of the Lakers after they won it in '88. It had showed the players holding basketballs with the years in which LA won it. IT STARTED WITH 1972!!!

THAT franchise is trying to conjure up false championships nowadays, because it sure as hell didn't acknowledge them before.

BOSTON CELTICS
2008 NBA CHAMPIONS
COMING TO AGE: THE CHASE FOR BANNER 18

Exactly. I remember as a kid in the 1980s hearing about the Lakers going for their "5th" championship, their "6th", etc. The Lakers didn't even hang a banner in LA acknowledging the Minny ones until toward the end of the Shaq-Kobe era. If the entire fanbase and franchise didn't acknowledge it until then, why should anyone else?

GWVan · Post #20 » by **GWVan** » Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:02 pm

I think that if you you were an active fan of the team when they were in Minny than you can count the rings - if you did not come on board until they were in LA then not so much