I'm never worried about the Lakers until they're actually eliminated. So basically I haven't been worried about them since 1999.

So DC - trying to be as objective as you can, who do you see coming out of the West at the end of this ? Still the Lakers ?

I think the East is a mess, it can be almost anyone at this point, I just don't see any one team that is dominating.

In the end though the championship will be won by whomever comes out from the west.

Must win tomorrow for Bucks vs. Nets. They had there opportunities last game, but couldn't put the ball in the basket. GP is gonna play with a bad lower back. It's gut-check time.

AI, Kobe, Jermaine O'Neal were announced to the Olympic Team. Some say that the other O'Neal should play, but he doesn't want to. It looks like this US team will not be an embarrassment like last summer's squad.

They also have invited Elton Brand, Richard Jefferson, and Nick Collison to be members of the team. Major props for Jefferson man to be invited! Kidd's on the team right??

I'm prety sure Kidd is on the team, but plawrence would know better than me. I do know that Ray Allen, former Buck, is on there.

I'm ashamed to say, I don't know. Anyway, except for game 1, Nets-Bucks has been a great series, eh BGT? Some ugly BB Tuesday night, but still exciting, at least for Nets fans. There was actually some noise in the building at the end. The Bucks have given us all we can handle. I can actually see the Nets losing tonight, and blowing game 7 at home.

Alright New Jersey! Sorry badguytony, but I gotta hand it to the Bucks, they put up more of a fight than I thought they would have (but I still would have rather seen Washington in there, but oh well). Let's roll over the Celts & roll our way into the Eastern Conference Finals! GO NETS!!

It was a tough way to go out of the playoffs, but the Nets were the better team. For a moment though with 5 minutes left and cutting the deficit to 9, I thought they may comeback all the way. I doubt Payton will stay, but they get Atlanta's draft pick, which is in the lottery. I wish they would draft Dwyane Wade here in Milwaukee, but they need a low post presence. Either draft a big guy, or sign and trade GP to maybe get that missing piece.

How about Karl Malone?

I'm glad to see the Celtics advance after everybody said they had no business being in the playoffs.

How about Karl Malone? [/b][/quote]The Mailman still has a couple years, but I hear he wants to play for the Lakers. Definetly, I would take him for the time being.

How about Karl Malone? [/b][/quote]The Mailman still has a couple years, but I hear he wants to play for the Lakers. Definetly, I would take him for the time being. [/b][/quote]WOW! I didn't know that he wanted to go to L.A. I mean, can you image him in that uniform, I think it'd be cool. Not only that, but Shaq/Kobe/Malone would be unstopable!

Ah, Irishman. You're my kind of guy.
BGT, you're right. The Bucks definitely need a big man. They lost this series on the boards,

Go Lakers! They disposed of Minnesota in the first round, which makes 25 consecutive series victories for Phil, and 7 consecutive first-round exits for the Wolves. Bring on San Antonio.

As much as I can't stand him, I think that Karl Malone would be an excellent addition to the Lakers next year. They really lack a presence at the power forward spot. Samaki Walker never really panned out, and Horry is really a tall small forward playing out of position.

As long as Malone can accept being option #3, then I think he'd be a great fit for the Lakers. He couldn't wear his familiar #32, however, so maybe he'd bust out #12 in honor of his buddy Stockton. I don't want to get ahead of myself, since everything is just rumors right now...but wouldn't it be great if he broke the all-time scoring record in the purple and gold? Wilt scored his final points as a Laker, as did Kareem. Is the Mailman next on the list?

Lakers win! Lakers win! I bet all those people who got all excited & said that Minnesota would win when they were up 2-1 in the series feel pretty stupid now! Let's go L.A.! PLEASE KILL THE SPURS!!!

Alright, Jersey won tonight to get off to a 1-0 series lead. Man, they almost blew it in the 3rd quarter. They were up by 11 & then they were down (they couldn't hit a shot). They better not do what Indiana did, loss to Boston b/c they couldn't hit a shot!

A 99-95 Lakers win evens their series with San Antonio at 2 games apiece. Now it's getting interesting, with 2 of the last 3 games in San Antonio. I think the mental toughness of the Spurs will be tested again. Will they show up to play, or will they just pack it in like they did over the last two years? I am hoping for the latter.

It looks like Sacramento's title hopes are slim to none, and slim looks like he's leaving the building. Without Chris Webber there, things are very different. As evidenced by their game last night, they still have a chance to win, but I don't think that they'll be able to handle the winner of the Spurs/Lakers series, since they won't really have anyone to go up against Duncan or Shaq.

Don Corp, what do you think of that Raiders BB I told you about?

Hoops fan here! Okay, so I don't watch the NBA but I do watch some college games! I grew up in Indiana!! :p

I just bought Bobby Knight's book: My Story. It's great. I love Bobby!!! He's going to be on tonight on ESPN after the baseball game....

I signed up, but haven't posted yet.

That is excellent to hear. Don't be shy

What's your name?

So far the home team has won all the games in the Lakers/Spurs contests which implies Lakers will lose
--- ---


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Corpuzzi:
[QB] A 99-95 Lakers win evens their series with San Antonio at 2 games apiece. Now it's getting interesting, with 2 of the last 3 games in San Antonio. I think the mental toughness of the Spurs will be tested again. Will they show up to play, or will they just pack it in like they did over the last two years? I am hoping for the latter.

If you want to look at things like that, then you can also say that the Lakers have beaten the Spurs in the playoffs in the last two years, winning in 4 games back in 2001 and in 5 games in 2002. This "implies" that they'll win in 6 games this year. If things always worked out like this, then they wouldn't even play. But that's not how it always works out. The Lakers were tied at 2-2 against Sacramento last year, and they managed to win game 6 at home and game 7 on the road. I guess that's why they play the games.

At least the Sixers did what they had to do - to at least to tie the series. We should be up 3-1 that loss at Detroit was a killer for us. Although we have seemed to get the momentum - I still look at the big picture which is we had to win 4 of 5 and that is a tough thing to do. Now it is 2 of 3 - still tough but I guess you never know.

The Nets have theirs in the bag, I am surprised at Dallas I really thought they were going to play better than they have - and the Kings are playing them tough. Lakers and Spurs, Spurs should have won yesterday but Lakers did what they had to do - this series is probably the most difficult to call, I am rooting for the Spurs though - sorry DC, can't stand the Lakers or Phil Jackson although I do wish him a speedy recovery.

I know that there are a lot of Laker haters out there, and this is understandable. But I was just interested in knowing if you Laker haters hated the Chicago Bulls back in the 90s when they were winning all of their championships. Do you hate the Lakers because they're winning too much, or do you hate them for some other reason?

yo DC im way out at the other end of the country but im a huge Laker fan. I've loved them ever since they drafted my man Kobe(I saw him play in the PA state final at Hershey as HS senior & have loved him ever since). But what I love most about LA is guys like DFish, DGeorge, MadDog Madsen, & Horry who get no credit but lay it on the line every night & always step up & hit huge shots

And THATS why they win. Its like Kobe said after the game last night: somin like: "So many times we get outplayed & outshot & if u look at the statbook theres no way we shoulda won, but we REFUSE to LOSE- we will our way to victory."

Heres another thought DC: It seems to me that a lot more people rooted for the Bulls(i didn't cuz I was a huge Knick fan at the time ) in the 90's than the Lakers now. AND people wanted Jordan to succeed every time to carry on his legacy. On the other hand, there are so many Kobe haters who want him to lose. why can't ppl appreciate Kobe's iron will like they did MJ- just a thought

I love Derek Fisher

I'm not a Laker hater. I'm a Nets lover.

I agree...there were tons of people who rooted for MJ back in the day. This was probably due in large part to the Detroit Pistons. They were the big, bad wolf and MJ was little red riding hood. Because the Pistons played a thuggish sort of game, and MJ played an entertaining, hire-wire type of game, people naturally wanted to see Michael succeed, since they wanted to see the league go in that direction. He had to struggle to win his championship, and when he finally won it, people were really happy for him.

Kobe, on the other hand, might have had it too easy for some people. He grew up as a rich kid, the son of an NBA player, and he was the first non-big man to skip college. I remember thinking that he would fail miserably, and it wasn't until he got traded to the Lakers that I warmed up to him. He won his first championship in his 4th season, which was when he was 21/22 years old. In comparison, Michael didn't win his first one until he was 27. If the Lakers continue their run, Kobe could equal Michael's six by that age.

I also hear a lot of people say that Kobe wouldn't be as good as he is without Shaq, and they count that against him. Although Michael never had anyone as dominant as Shaq alongside him, I think that the supporting cast he had in Chicago was far better than the Lakers Kobe has around him. Let's take Jordan and Pippen out of the equation. Among those left, there were still others who appeared as all-stars during their years with the Bulls. Horace Grant and BJ Armstrong were all-stars and Bulls, and Bill Cartwright was not far removed from being a star with the Knicks. In the second incarnation of the Bulls dynasty, they had Dennis Rodman, who was an all-star with the Pistons, a two-time defensive POY, and probably one of the greatest rebounders of all time. They also had Ron Harper, who was the perfect guy to replace MJ for short stretches of time.

For the Lakers, they never really had too much beyond Kobe and Shaq. Robert Horry made some clutch shots, but often disappeared for games at a time and was never completely comfortable at either the 3 or the 4. They have had a revolving door at the 4, with A.C. Green and Horace Grant (both of whom were way past their primes), and Samaki Walker, who will never have a prime. DFish is a great shooter, but will never be considered a star.

So to say that Kobe has it easy is not being fair. No one ever said that Bill Russell had it easy because he had Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Bill Sharman, John Havlicek, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones, and the other slew of Hall of Famers that stocked the Celtics roster in the 50s and 60s. No one bitched about Magic having Kareem, Worthy, Bob McAdoo, and Byron Scott. So why are we all hating on Kobe?

I think Kobe is disliked partly because of the view that he manipulated the draft by basically refusing to deal with Charlotte. Also, it appears that he had it too easy, like you said DC.

After Jerry Krause, in his ego driven moronic move, dismantled the Bulls I have cheered the Lakers on to championships. I am still a Bulls fan, but I admit that I want Phil Jackson to have the most rings as a coach. (It's a bad sign that someone that is supposed follow a healthy diet had a 90% blockage in his artery, though). I know when Jackson won the first six that the knock on him was that it was easy with Jordan, but the only players that were there all six times were Jordan and Pippen. None of the others from the first three were there for the second three. Throw in the fact that Jordan and Pippen were there for a few years and didn't win until Jackson was the coach and I think the answer is clear - Jackson is a great coach.

The Bulls did have a great supporting cast, but they were good in their roles as Bulls, but not elsewhere. Horace Grant looked a little more like his brother when he went to Orlando. Rodman was a great fit - a defender and rebounder that didn't look to score but he was a bust in San Antonio. Jackson was able to get real production out of him.

Ego, maybe? Didn't he recently make a comment to the effect that people will never realize how good he is because he plays on the same team with Shaq?

And to change the subject if I may....
HOW 'BOUT THOSE NETS!!!