Lakeshow

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Big words from the 3 point line.

If you see it that way, then I think that further reinforces the point.

[Mister Hoarse]

If you see it that way, then I think that further reinforces the point.

Whatever makes things happy inside your head.

Beauty Is In The Eye Of The Beer Holder

[sandiego17]

Where to start? Sterling on the brink of the luxury tax? Lets talk when he's paying it for a number of years and on the brink of the penalty. If that happens, I'll give Sterling a 1% confidence rating (an improvement over the 0% I have him at now.) Consecutive games? Unless you're breaking the record, does anyone (besides Clipper fan) really care? Meaningless. As far as publicity is concerned, attention is attention, and the Lakers get a lot more than the Clippers, even when they are awful. Breaking it down into sub categories feels like reaching to make a point.

Do you consider the Lakers 11'-12' and 12'-13' seasons successes? Yet the same results = success for the Clips and this season will be the first time (I believe ever, but would have to review) the Clips accomplish more than the Lakers. Over the last few seasons, the Lakers have won a division, made the conference semi-finals and got bounced in the first round. The Clippers have won the division, made the second round and got bounced in the first round. I'm sorry you don't see the obvious disconnect between the Lakers/Raiders, Clippers/Chargers thing. The Raiders are not the Lakers, that's laughable and you know it. The Raiders last made the playoffs when? Won a championship when? Want to try with the Lakers (forget back to back, lets just count to the last one). You're right, I don't get it and yes and I understand why, because its ridiculous. The Chargers are not the Clippers, the Chargers have been much, much more successful and have a much, much better history. The Clippers are pretty much on their own in regards to lack of any success whatsoever. Maybe they will be able to sustain the modest success, who knows? A lot of historically bad franchises have a short run like the Clips, few sustain it. My bet is they don't, Paul isn't getting any younger or less injured. Could be wrong though, but doubt Sterling decides he's going to pay the tax for multiple seasons going forward. There is a reason the other owners weren't threatened by Paul to the Clippers and all shit their pants when it was Paul to the Lakers. It has zero to do with the trade compensation.

Raider fan huh? I guess when the truth is meddlesome, dropping Raiders into the dialogue eases the pain . Forgot to add the obvious, F the Raider. Roll Lakers.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

Where to start? Sterling on the brink of the luxury tax? Lets talk when he's paying it for a number of years and on the brink of the penalty. If that happens, I'll give Sterling a 1% confidence rating (an improvement over the 0% I have him at now.)

Well as I said, his rep as a miser wrt the team hasn't been accurate for several years now. And oh, btw, if you can actually identify any guys he DIDN'T pay that he should have....I'm all ears.

Do you consider the Lakers 11'-12' and 12'-13' seasons successes? Yet the same results = success for the Clips and this season will be the first time (I believe ever, but would have to review) the Clips accomplish more than the Lakers.

I suppose if you're holding everyone to the same standard, that's accurate....but then we already knew that the Lakers historical success trails only the Celtics' and dwarfs everyone in the league. So now that we got that out of the way.... I never claimed the Clippers had some comparable history. They are the better team right now. I've said that three times, I think. You're talking about history in response to a point made about current state.

I'm sorry you don't see the obvious disconnect between the Lakers/Raiders, Clippers/Chargers thing. The Raiders are not the Lakers, that's laughable and you know it. The Raiders last made the playoffs when? Won a championship when? Want to try with the Lakers (forget back to back, lets just count to the last one). The Chargers are not the Clippers, the Chargers have been much, much more successful and have a much, much better history.

Now you want to ignore history and want to focus on current states. Yes, the Raiders have sucked for quite a long time. But at one time they were one of the most consistently successful franchises in their sport and won multiple championships (4 if you consider the AFL). Their resume at the time we began dominating them in the LT era outclassed ours substantially. No one is saying the Raiders are the Lakers. N one is saying the Chargers are the Clippers. And no one is saying the 'power relationship' is exactly the same. But the point stands about the kind of weak argumentation asserted by the fans of formerly great franchises getting their asses handed to them and opining about the former glory days....cue Bruce Springsteen. So whether you agree or not, they asserted the same kind of baffling argumentation. "Forget the current, because of the past." When the dynamic changes, they will say "Who cares about the past, we are kicking your asses now." Both equally vacuous.

The Clippers are pretty much on their own in regards to lack of any success whatsoever

I don't need you or anyone to tell me that. I've been a loyal fan since 1978. Believe me, I know how bad they have been and why. It's why I won't accept a bunch of bullshit from people telling me that I need to hush until the Clippers have won 16 championships. It's also why I won't talk a bunch of garbage about my team. I can read the scoreboard and I also know how fragile is whatever success the Clippers are having. I've had a lifetime of top picks and players blowing out their knees or the team making inexplicable trades or whatever. But the pat on the head smarminess isn't really called for. I'm pretty sure as a Chargers fan, you're familiar with it. So it makes it surprising that you'd resort to it.

My bet is they don't, Paul isn't getting any younger or less injured. Could be wrong though, but doubt Sterling decides he's going to pay the tax for multiple seasons going forward.

And my bet is that blowing their wad on Kobe and having to retain so much deadwood isn't going to get the Lakers Love, Lebron and Parker in the fold by 2016. My bet is that a return to greatness, if it is to come, is more than an offseason or two away. So we'll see.

I guess when the truth is meddlesome, dropping Raiders into the dialogue eases the pain .

No just totally appropriate. it's the exact same yang I heard them run.

[sandiego17]

Well as I said, his rep as a miser wrt the team hasn't been accurate for several years now. And oh, btw, if you can actually identify any guys he DIDN'T pay that he should have....I'm all ears.

So with all the lottery picks, Clippers never lost anyone they shouldn't have? That's an indictment of the Clipper way more than anything anyone can come up with. I'll go the Laker route, Lamar Odom.

I suppose if you're holding everyone to the same standard, that's accurate....but then we already knew that the Lakers historical success trails only the Celtics' and dwarfs everyone in the league. So now that we got that out of the way.... I never claimed the Clippers had some comparable history. They are the better team right now. I've said that three times, I think. You're talking about history in response to a point made about current state.

Exactly, a failure for the Lakers is a success for the Clippers. No one disputes the Clippers are better right now. I do dispute that they will be for any length of time or have been in the past (even near past.) Hell, just two years ago the fading, hopeless, shitty Lakers beat the Clippers out for the division and advanced just as far in the playoffs. Advanced just as far last season too. The Clippers are better for one season. Awesome. If it gets to 10 years or so, we can talk about how they have been better. So far, 1 year. And trails the Celtics in what way? Championships? Ok. That's Raider-esque more than anything and Laker fan can dish out. The C's won 11 rings in the Bill Russell era. The Lakers have been dominant and maintained success far longer. When you run into C's fans, let them know, its Magic 6 - Bird 3, Kobe 5 - Pierce 1. They can have Russell's 11, I wasn't alive. I've enjoyed the 10-4 since I've been a fan much more, wouldn't trade it for the Bill Russell era.

Now you want to ignore history and want to focus on current states. Yes, the Raiders have sucked for quite a long time. But at one time they were one of the most consistently successful franchises in their sport and won multiple championships (4 if you consider the AFL). Their resume at the time we began dominating them in the LT era outclassed ours substantially. No one is saying the Raiders are the Lakers. N one is saying the Chargers are the Clippers. And no one is saying the 'power relationship' is exactly the same. But the point stands about the kind of weak argumentation asserted by the fans of formerly great franchises getting their asses handed to them and opining about the former glory days....cue Bruce Springsteen. So whether you agree or not, they asserted the same kind of baffling argumentation. "Forget the current, because of the past." When the dynamic changes, they will say "Who cares about the past, we are kicking your asses now." Both equally vacuous.

The Raiders resume still outclasses the Chargers, who would dispute that? My point is that doesn't matter, you can't compare the Raiders to the Lakers, as you yourself say. The Lakers resume is so much better than the Raiders it isn't even worth discussing. The Lakers/Clips, Raiders/Bolts "power relationship" is no where near the same. Its just not. And your point about getting their ass handed to them is very weak. The Lakers have accomplished the same as the Clippers in the Chris Paul era. One division, one second round exit, one first round exit. This year is the only year the Lakers will not accomplish at least as much as the Clippers. That's a fact.

I don't need you or anyone to tell me that. I've been a loyal fan since 1978. Believe me, I know how bad they have been and why. It's why I won't accept a bunch of bullshit from people telling me that I need to hush until the Clippers have won 16 championships. It's also why I won't talk a bunch of garbage about my team. I can read the scoreboard and I also know how fragile is whatever success the Clippers are having. I've had a lifetime of top picks and players blowing out their knees or the team making inexplicable trades or whatever. But the pat on the head smarminess isn't really called for. I'm pretty sure as a Chargers fan, you're familiar with it. So it makes it surprising that you'd resort to it.

Chargers are much more accomplished historically than the Clippers. I'm not talking about championships, just plain success on the field/court, superstars, HOFers, wins, playoffs, playoff victories, AFL/AFC Championships, etc. Just because you root for both doesn't make them comparable. Maybe the Lions? They have Sanders though.

And my bet is that blowing their wad on Kobe and having to retain so much deadwood isn't going to get the Lakers Love, Lebron and Parker in the fold by 2016. My bet is that a return to greatness, if it is to come, is more than an offseason or two away. So we'll see.

Still pretty sure you're the only one here that brings up Lebron as a Laker. Kobe and deadwood? What deadwood is on the books after this year? Now you sound like Den and the bet that the team is 10-15-20 years away. Maybe, but I would never bet against the Lakers.

No just totally appropriate. it's the exact same yang I heard them run.

No.

[oneinchpunch]

So much Deadwood. Dammit!

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

So with all the lottery picks, Clippers never lost anyone they shouldn't have? That's an indictment of the Clipper way more than anything anyone can come up with. I'll go the Laker route, Lamar Odom.

Not really. The Lamar Odom that played for the Lakers wasn't the one that departed the Clippers or played in Miami. He was a nice player but not for the dollars he made in Miami. And his career arc and emotional issues are sad realities. But yes, really strong indictment of Elgin Baylor and an owner that left him in that role for so long. It could be argued that some of the players should have been retained if they were combined with other players and acquisitions. But as individual players, none of them amounted to franchise-altering.

I do dispute that they will be for any length of time

Perhaps, but your opinion is duly noted.

The Clippers are better for one season. Awesome. If it gets to 10 years or so, we can talk about how they have been better.

No. That's just wrong. Again you're conflating past and present as it suits you. I have already said multiple times that there is no comparison between the Clippers and Lakers historically. My sole argument is that they are better now. It doesn't require 10 years of success to substantiate that. Look at the teams. Look at the records. Scoreboard.

And trails the Celtics in what way? Championships? Ok. That's Raider-esque more than anything and Laker fan can dish out. The C's won 11 rings in the Bill Russell era. The Lakers have been dominant and maintained success far longer. When you run into C's fans, let them know, its Magic 6 - Bird 3, Kobe 5 - Pierce 1. They can have Russell's 11, I wasn't alive. I've enjoyed the 10-4 since I've been a fan much more, wouldn't trade it for the Bill Russell era.

I think this is another example of you letting emotions get in the way here. You keep shifting your timeframes of comparison. You use all-time, current, last three years and now with the Celtics you're using abbreviated all-time. Come on. You went to business school. That's D work.

The Raiders resume still outclasses the Chargers, who would dispute that?

Great, so you understand why I say fan bluster sounds very similar between Lakers and Raiders fans.

My point is that doesn't matter, you can't compare the Raiders to the Lakers, as you yourself say. The Lakers resume is so much better than the Raiders it isn't even worth discussing.

I wish this were relevant to this discussion. You wouldn't sound so arrogant and intoxicated by your own fumes.

Chargers are much more accomplished historically than the Clippers. I'm not talking about championships, just plain success on the field/court, superstars, HOFers, wins, playoffs, playoff victories, AFL/AFC Championships, etc.

Neat.

Still pretty sure you're the only one here that brings up Lebron as a Laker.

Here. It was getting a lot of play in the national media there for awhile. Now Kevin Love and blahbahblah. Whatever.

Kobe and deadwood? What deadwood is on the books after this year?

Yeah, I don't remember which contracts the team is going to have to hang on to, because most of the current Lakers are scrubs and scrubs don't really register with me but I read an article on ESPN last week (I think) that listed the players the team would have to retain. And for a variety of reasons there are a lot of these guys they will likely have to retain.

Now you sound like Den and the bet that the team is 10-15-20 years away.

Whattttt? Now you're smoking crack. I said "more than 1-2 offseasons away." How does that translate into 10-15-20 years away????

No.

My response to most of your homerism above.

[sandiego17]

We shall see. Still will point out that the Clippers are in position to do more than the Lakers THIS one season. They haven't been better in the past (show me what they have accomplished more than the the Lakers in any season, not even in their breakout 2012-13 season did they do more) and doubt they remain better for any significant length of time.

Also disagree with your notion about different time periods. All are relevant in their positions of the argument. Nobody gets D's in b-school (we didn't even have letter gardes.) H work man, at worst HP.

So if 10-15-20 means I'm on crack and not what you meant by "more than 1-2 offseasons" how many do you anticipate? I'm betting I'm less on crack than my exaggeration may suggest. No deadwood, all contracts save Kobe's and Nash's and cap killers Sacre and Elias Harris are off the books. Speculation on who they bring backs ranks up there with the LeBron stuff you give credence too, its meaningless.

If ESPN is the source, here you go:

As for the Kevin Love-to-New York rumors, most executives believe Love is destined for the Lakers when he becomes a free agent in 2015. "That's a 100 percent certainty,'' one GM told me.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10375249/will-carmelo-anthony-sign-chicago-bulls-nba/refresh/true

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

You went to some B-school where they didn't have letter grades? That explains a lot. Did everyone get to be valedictorian at graduation, too? ;-)

[sandiego17]

You went to some B-school where they didn't have letter grades? That explains a lot. Did everyone get to be valedictorian at graduation, too? ;-)

No, just me. But most did graduate with high honors. That thing in the news where they report certain inflation is fairly accurate, trick is getting in. One girl did get kicked out, a former miss india, for blatant plagiarizing, but even that took time. Last saw her on a teaser for the apprentice years ago.



Ok, not me. Not sure if she was actually a miss india especially considering the plagiarizing, but wouldn't say its out of the question.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

If she was a Miss India and she was open to plagiarizing, it's surprising that she didn't find a way to stay in school.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownAsBKR]

http://scores.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=400489568