Celtics to pass Lakers on all-time wins list with +15 wins this season

[jpotter33]

https://twitter.com/CelticsDirect/status/776850347583234048

Here's an interesting little piece of information that I didn't know. Should start creating some separation from them in the next year or two.

[Moranis]

https://twitter.com/CelticsDirect/status/776850347583234048

Here's an interesting little piece of information that I didn't know. Should start creating some separation from them in the next year or two.

Boston does have 2 extra years starting in 1947 while the Lakers didn't start until 1949.  The Sixers are 3rd followed closely by the Knicks. 

You can sort by wins here: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/

Boston is actually 3rd in win percentage behind the Lakers and Spurs.  Spurs may pass the Lakers this year (though I believe that does count ABA time and not just NBA - of course that might actually be holding the Spurs down).  Despite the Clippers recent success they are still 2nd worst all time at just 39.4% ahead of only the Wolves at 39.1%

[Surferdad]

Since this is a Celtics board, I gotta say that only championships matter and the C's still have the edge all-time.

[jpotter33]

Since this is a Celtics board, I gotta say that only championships matter and the C's still have the edge all-time.

Well, after this season we'll have them on both.

[Clench123]

It's always satisfying beating Lakers no matter how small the victory.  There should be a special emoticon on this board, one that mocks the Lakers.

[LarBrd33]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

[SHAQATTACK]

We need to hoist up # 18 ASAP

[GreenFaith1819]

Good.

Something else to rub in their little purple and gold faces....love it.

I'll make sure to remind that Laker fan at the McDonald's around the corner about this....maybe she'll stop calling my Celtics the "Keltics".

[alldaboston]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

[Moranis]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

are they?  I think most people agree Brooklyn will be the worst team, but are the Lakers really that much better than the Suns and Sixers.  I think it is far from a given they finish outside the bottom 3 by record (the lottery is a whole different thing of course).

[CelticPride2016]

I agree this doesn't mean much, but I am surprised we are this close. I figured the Lakers are the Yankees of the NBA and have been buying wins nearly every year for many decades.

I like how we are 9-3 against them in the Finals, although a lot of that was done with Bill Russell.

I think the Lakers get too much credit as a great team. They are the second best of all time behind the Celtics.

I mostly base that on the 9-3 playoff lead and not just the one extra title. I find it difficult to accept the five Laker titles won in Minneapolis. How many titles have the Los Angeles Lakers won? My count has them at 11. It's Celtics 17 Los Angeles 11, not very close.

[alldaboston]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

are they?  I think most people agree Brooklyn will be the worst team, but are the Lakers really that much better than the Suns and Sixers.  I think it is far from a given they finish outside the bottom 3 by record (the lottery is a whole different thing of course).

I think it goes back to my point about how people are down on them and don't think they've got any great pieces. Their core guys are pretty [dang] good already. I'm assuming natural progression from guys like Russell, Randle, Clarkson. Then factor in that they got rid of Byron Scott who was holding guys like Russell back a lot, and add in Walton (who looks like he could be a good coach in the NBA). And suddenly they're not nearly as bad as they might seem. Their defense is trash, I'll say that. But, despite my love for the Celtics and my hatred for the lakers, I have to respect their rebuild. It's looking good so far.

[Moranis]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

are they?  I think most people agree Brooklyn will be the worst team, but are the Lakers really that much better than the Suns and Sixers.  I think it is far from a given they finish outside the bottom 3 by record (the lottery is a whole different thing of course).

I think it goes back to my point about how people are down on them and don't think they've got any great pieces. Their core guys are pretty [dang] good already. I'm assuming natural progression from guys like Russell, Randle, Clarkson. Then factor in that they got rid of Byron Scott who was holding guys like Russell back a lot, and add in Walton (who looks like he could be a good coach in the NBA). And suddenly they're not nearly as bad as they might seem. Their defense is trash, I'll say that. But, despite my love for the Celtics and my hatred for the lakers, I have to respect their rebuild. It's looking good so far.

I just don't think they are that good.  Certainly could be in a few years, but this year, I expect them to win no more than like 25 games.  I mean this is their roster:

G - Calderon, Russell, Clarkson, Williams, Huertas
F - Young, Ingram, Deng, Randle, Nance, Jianlian, Brown
C - Mozgov, Zubac, Black

That just doesn't strike me as a very good team even expecting reasonable growth from the young guys and to top it off they have huge money and years locked in for Mozgov and Deng, which will destroy their opportunity to add a big name free agent (by the time those guys come off the young guys will need big raises).  Now Ingram comes out and looks like the second coming, then they might surprise, but I just don't see that team winning very many games and will be pretty clearly in the bottom 4 teams.

[LarBrd33]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

are they?  I think most people agree Brooklyn will be the worst team, but are the Lakers really that much better than the Suns and Sixers.  I think it is far from a given they finish outside the bottom 3 by record (the lottery is a whole different thing of course).

I think it goes back to my point about how people are down on them and don't think they've got any great pieces. Their core guys are pretty [dang] good already. I'm assuming natural progression from guys like Russell, Randle, Clarkson. Then factor in that they got rid of Byron Scott who was holding guys like Russell back a lot, and add in Walton (who looks like he could be a good coach in the NBA). And suddenly they're not nearly as bad as they might seem. Their defense is trash, I'll say that. But, despite my love for the Celtics and my hatred for the lakers, I have to respect their rebuild. It's looking good so far.

I just don't think they are that good.  Certainly could be in a few years, but this year, I expect them to win no more than like 25 games.  I mean this is their roster:

G - Calderon, Russell, Clarkson, Williams, Huertas
F - Young, Ingram, Deng, Randle, Nance, Jianlian, Brown
C - Mozgov, Zubac, Black

That just doesn't strike me as a very good team even expecting reasonable growth from the young guys and to top it off they have huge money and years locked in for Mozgov and Deng, which will destroy their opportunity to add a big name free agent (by the time those guys come off the young guys will need big raises).  Now Ingram comes out and looks like the second coming, then they might surprise, but I just don't see that team winning very many games and will be pretty clearly in the bottom 4 teams.

It's an interesting young core.

PG - Clarkson
SG - Russell
SF - Ingram
PF - Randle
C - ? ... Mozgov?

They oughta trade one of their PG's for one of Philly's centers. 

Lot of potential there.  Randle could still end up a star.  Russell and Ingram in-particular have a chance to be superstars.

[jpotter33]

I think the Lakers can be pretty good in a couple years if Russell, Ingram and Randle pan out.  Their pick is only top 3 protected this year... hopefully they lose it.

i agree. a lot of people are down on them for some reason (not just on this board but in general). thats a nice core theyve got, then add in clarkson (a steal at 46th in 2014), and guys like nance and zubac who looked solid in summer league. theyve got a good 6 man core, if they all pan out theyll have a nice little dynasty on their hands.

i think they lose their pick this year. theyre good enough already to be better than bottom 3.

are they?  I think most people agree Brooklyn will be the worst team, but are the Lakers really that much better than the Suns and Sixers.  I think it is far from a given they finish outside the bottom 3 by record (the lottery is a whole different thing of course).

I think it goes back to my point about how people are down on them and don't think they've got any great pieces. Their core guys are pretty [dang] good already. I'm assuming natural progression from guys like Russell, Randle, Clarkson. Then factor in that they got rid of Byron Scott who was holding guys like Russell back a lot, and add in Walton (who looks like he could be a good coach in the NBA). And suddenly they're not nearly as bad as they might seem. Their defense is trash, I'll say that. But, despite my love for the Celtics and my hatred for the lakers, I have to respect their rebuild. It's looking good so far.

I just don't think they are that good.  Certainly could be in a few years, but this year, I expect them to win no more than like 25 games.  I mean this is their roster:

G - Calderon, Russell, Clarkson, Williams, Huertas
F - Young, Ingram, Deng, Randle, Nance, Jianlian, Brown
C - Mozgov, Zubac, Black

That just doesn't strike me as a very good team even expecting reasonable growth from the young guys and to top it off they have huge money and years locked in for Mozgov and Deng, which will destroy their opportunity to add a big name free agent (by the time those guys come off the young guys will need big raises).  Now Ingram comes out and looks like the second coming, then they might surprise, but I just don't see that team winning very many games and will be pretty clearly in the bottom 4 teams.

It's an interesting young core.

PG - Clarkson
SG - Russell
SF - Ingram
PF - Randle
C - ? ... Mozgov?

They oughta trade one of their PG's for one of Philly's centers. 

Lot of potential there.  Randle could still end up a star.  Russell and Ingram in-particular have a chance to be superstars.

Actually, I think a Clarkson for Noel deal makes sense for both sides.

Russell and Clarkson aren't going to coexist together forever. They certainly can't aim for Okafor, because Randle and Okafor is a terrible pairing. And Philly won't get Russell for Noel, especially with his contract situation, so Clarkson for Noel seems to make the most sense.