http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=hollinger_john&page=FranchiseRankings2010-Lakers

This article is retarded. Straight up, retarded. Hollinger can burn in hell. His arguments suck, and are wrong. Its not like I'm just blindly rejecting his premise -- he's just completely wrong. Like on all counts. What a freaking moron.

Here's a good comment from the comments section that refutes most of his retardation (but not all of it, there's just simply too much to be dealt with):

The Lakers of LA have won 11 championships.
The Celtics of Boston have won 17 championships.
Russell, Parish, Cowens, Heinsohn, Havlichick, Jones, Cousy, McHale, Ramsey, White, Walton, Bird, Jones, Pierce, Garnet, Allen, Sharman, Johnson...
The celts have 23 players in the HOF, with 3 more on their roster
The Lakers have had 16 players in the HOF with Kobe and Shaq in the wings
The players on the Celts are just as impressive as the ones on the Lakers, even more so one might say.

No way you can say LA beats Boston - the championships says it all 17-11.

And don't give me this crap of including the Minnesota years.
If the Yankees moved to Oklahoma City next year, would that make Oklahoma City the best MLB franchise ever?

Well, if we're talking about the modern NBA, you have to pick the Lakers.  Most of the edge that the Celtics have comes from the 50's and 60's when the NBA was still in its infancy.

You can't blame people for considering the Lakers' franchise superior when in the history of the NBA as we know it the Lakers have been by far the most dominant and consistently well managed franchise.  

They do have an unfair advantage, though - the biggest basketball market in the country with tons of celebrities to galvanize the fanbase.  They've gotten so many huge free agents because of that, and will continue to do so.

Boston is back where it belongs.
The lovable, sometimes hapless, underdog

Quote from: PosImpos on June 25, 2010, 04:59:02 AM

Well, if we're talking about the modern NBA, you have to pick the Lakers.  Most of the edge that the Celtics have comes from the 50's and 60's when the NBA was still in its infancy.

You can't blame people for considering the Lakers' franchise superior when in the history of the NBA as we know it the Lakers have been by far the most dominant and consistently well managed franchise. 

They do have an unfair advantage, though - the biggest basketball market in the country with tons of celebrities to galvanize the fanbase.  They've gotten so many huge free agents because of that, and will continue to do so.

Yes because all those years in the 50's and 60's don't count..... 

The "Modern NBA" argument is silly. You could say that the Bulls are the greatest "Modern NBA" team because Jordan was so dominant. The NBA in the 70s-80s was still in its teenager ackward years after all.

Quote from: Fafnir on June 25, 2010, 10:28:04 AM

Quote from: PosImpos on June 25, 2010, 04:59:02 AM

Well, if we're talking about the modern NBA, you have to pick the Lakers.  Most of the edge that the Celtics have comes from the 50's and 60's when the NBA was still in its infancy.

You can't blame people for considering the Lakers' franchise superior when in the history of the NBA as we know it the Lakers have been by far the most dominant and consistently well managed franchise. 

They do have an unfair advantage, though - the biggest basketball market in the country with tons of celebrities to galvanize the fanbase.  They've gotten so many huge free agents because of that, and will continue to do so.

Yes because all those years in the 50's and 60's don't count..... 

The "Modern NBA" argument is silly. You could say that the Bulls are the greatest "Modern NBA" team because Jordan was so dominant. The NBA in the 70s-80s was still in its teenager ackward years after all.

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just explaining why most people probably see it the way they do.

The NBA of the 50's and 60's was the NBA and it still counts, but it was also drastically different from what we see today. It's hard to deny the fact that since 1980, the Lakers have been the most dominant franchise. 

When did the majority of people really start paying attention to basketball?  If you said "After 1980" then you're probably on the right track.