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

[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.

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.

My guess is they're hoping the big guy they drafted at 31, Zubac, becomes the long term center. He looked better and more polished than I expected in summer league. Of course, big centers often look good in summer league (look no further than Jack Cooley, who torched us this year in Vegas).

[SparzWizard]

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.

Lakers fans be like "well the Celtics won their first 8 championships when there were only like 10 teams in the league so they don't count. Therefore, we have more and own the league in most NBA titles hanged."

[SparzWizard]

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.

And don't forget about the Luke Walton factor. He took a 39-4 team so far and started the season with a 24-0 record.

[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.

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.

And don't forget about the Luke Walton factor. He took a 39-4 team so far and started the season with a 24-0 record.

Sure, it is a very nice young core and they seemingly upgraded their coach, but this year, this team won't be that good.  That is all I was saying.

[Surferdad]

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.

And don't forget about the Luke Walton factor. He took a 39-4 team so far and started the season with a 24-0 record.

Sure, it is a very nice young core and they seemingly upgraded their coach, but this year, this team won't be that good.  That is all I was saying.

Yup not very good.  With a close game on the line, the vets they can turn to are Deng, Mosgov, Williams and Calderon.  The rest of the team is quite young so I expect this to be a rebuilding year for them.  They will not be bottom-3 however.

[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.

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.

And don't forget about the Luke Walton factor. He took a 39-4 team so far and started the season with a 24-0 record.

Sure, it is a very nice young core and they seemingly upgraded their coach, but this year, this team won't be that good.  That is all I was saying.

Yup not very good.  With a close game on the line, the vets they can turn to are Deng, Mosgov, Williams and Calderon.  The rest of the team is quite young so I expect this to be a rebuilding year for them.  They will not be bottom-3 however.

bottom 4?  I mean seriously, Brooklyn looks like the worst team, but I wouldn't be so sure the Lakers are better than Phoenix and Philadelphia.  Every other team in the league looks appreciably better on paper.  I mean which young core would you rather have, Philly, Phoenix, or LA.  Are Deng, Calderon, Mozgov, and Williams really a better veteran group than Chandler, Barbosa, Dudley, or Bledsoe?  LA's vets are better than Bayless, Rodriguez, and Henderson on Philly, but I think the Philly young guys are better on the whole. 

[alldaboston]

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.

Lakers fans be like "well the Celtics won their first 8 championships when there were only like 10 teams in the league so they don't count. Therefore, we have more and own the league in most NBA titles hanged."

I never get that. You can't just pick and choose which championships count. That's like me saying "oh, any team that's won in the past decade or so, their championships don't count. The NBA now is so soft compared to the 80s and 90s brand of basketball."

It just makes no sense.