Which Team Is Restored To Glory First, Celts or Lakers?
- Thread starter Newcattitudes
- Start date
LA. Ainge is all over the damn place. That and LA has homegrown studs like Westbrook that will come back home
The Celtics play in the cupcake/JV/NAIA Eastern Conference...so that helps them out. That said, they are never going to beat the Cavs in that conference for the next 3-5 years (no one will, NY Yankees of b-ball!) so if the OP means as far as getting to the NBA Finals...I'd go with my Lakers if they can finally get some guys to sign in LA through FA.
The Celtics have stockpiled young talent and have a ton of draft picks over the next three years. plus plenty of cap space. They are in a much better position than the Lakers. Even if the Lakers get Cousins, they are going to have nothing left except Kobe who is no longer the playing at the same level and Cousins. I see the Lakers on a downward slide until new management is brought in. BTW I hate both teams so there is no bias in my opinion, if I'm wrong it's just because one of the teams improved quickly or one made all the wrong moves.
Yeah but aren't all their picks mid-late first round? Nothing to get truly elite guys.
And what do the Lakers have to work with? Multiple draft picks and young talent can be packaged to acquire high level talent. The Celtics have many more pieces to work with.
Celtics don't have any elite guys, Lakers at least have Kobe for a couple more years and the apparent means/will to go after big free agents/players (Love, Aldridge, Jordan, Cousins).
The last time the Celtics signed a big name was Garnett. Lakers have been able to bring in Gasol, Nash, and Howard recently and look to do something this year.
The answer depends on two things: when does Kobe go the hell away, and when does Danny Ainge stop meddling and let Stevens coach the guys he wants?
Whichever happens first, the their team will be good again first. I'm banking on Kobe going away.
Whichever happens first, the their team will be good again first. I'm banking on Kobe going away.
Those picks don't mean a damn thing, as we found out last week when they tried to trade 6 of them to Charlotte to move up in the draft.
If we're talking about championship glory then it will take both of them awhile. I would put my money on the lakers simply because playing for them is a destination place. No top flight free agent signs in Boston. The only thing the Celtics have going for them is that they play in the east, so the road is easier.
Yeah, going to be tough for the Lakers to win in the west. They willl win another title before the Celtics do though. The Lakers have been closing on the Celtics for the all time titles' record for decades.
So you would rather have no picks than a bunch of mid first round and second round picks, ok gotcha. Boston has won more titles than anyone, you are a Laker fan dreaming, 21-61 for the Lakers, 40-42 for the Celts with more assets in a weak conference, I know who I"m betting on.
Lakers. If the Lakers sign a top big man they still have some left over to get one more decent player, also I think Russell will be good from the get go and if Kobe can stay healthy they will be decent enough to make the playoffs maybe next year. If they get all that and don't make the playoffs Kobe's 20+ million will be freed up two years from now to sign another star and 2 or 3 years from now they will be in good position to be great again.
Lol. You keep talking about these assets as if someone wants them. Ainge was just rebuffed last week when he tried to package SIX of them in a deal to Charlotte. No one wants that crap. I stated that Boston has playing on the east going for them, but still that isn't gonna put them over the top.
You need superstars to win a title and none are on the roster. No superstar free agent is signing there. No one wants their crapola picks. McHale isn't gonna gift them KG again. Boston isn't close, and neither are the Lakers for that matter.
Just because they are the Lakers they will have an in with every superstar free agent over the next few summers. Whether they will be able to sign any of them is a different matter.
You're using spin instead of logic. The Lakers are so far down plus Dr. Buss is gone, Phil Jackson ain't walking through that door. The Celtics roster is better and draft picks do factor in, are you ignorant or just a blind laker fan. Boston got turned down for one trade, that doesn't mean no one wants those assets, sometimes you can work a trade sometimes you can't. You sound angry, this is a message board, settle down, get laid or whatever it takes but chill out.
"Just because they are the Lakers they will have an in with every superstar free agent over the next few summers. Whether they will be able to sign any of them is a different matter." Yea everyone wants to play with an aging ball hog that has one foot out the door. You make no sense at all. The only thing I can come up with is you being a blind Laker homer.
Between the two the Lakers, Celtics are similar to UCLA . They had tons of success in the 60's-80s but not much before or after.
The Lakers have had success since the beginning of the NBA
The Lakers have had success since the beginning of the NBA
Last edited:
This is the problem for the Lakers and for a segment of their fans. Kobe is not an elite guy now, not even close. It remains to be seen if he's even good. At this point, he's basically Jordan playing out his last few years with the Wizards. Yet Kobe gets treated like it's still 2005, with a massively out-sized influence and role on the court.
Once Kobe leaves, the Lakers will always have a chance to rebuild quickly, because they will always be the dream destination for a lot of top players. However, it will be interesting to see how much of the Lakers' thunder the Clippers can steal, now that they have a real owner, with real money, and a real will to win big.
Exactly!!! I didn't think it was that hard to see, but apparently Boston having bunch of draft picks means a lot to some.
The Celtics are in much better shape if the question is which team is closer to being a 6 seed for the next decade. They have more young pieces, more draft picks and a better coach. None of that is poised to win a title though.
If we're talking rings, it's the Lakers. They have Randle and Russell, the cap is about to skyrocket, and a ton of big names will be free agents in the summer of 2016. When Kobe is off the books after this season, there's a ton of money and a giant opportunity waiting on elite guys that want to take both.
If we're talking rings, it's the Lakers. They have Randle and Russell, the cap is about to skyrocket, and a ton of big names will be free agents in the summer of 2016. When Kobe is off the books after this season, there's a ton of money and a giant opportunity waiting on elite guys that want to take both.
The Celtics have done a much better job of drafting and gathering assets. Unfortunately they've not landed in a spot in the draft where they could get a big time difference maker. The Lakers have been trying to be good the last couple of years, and have completely failed in doing so. Of course they are lucky in that they are still in position to turn things around quickly despite all the bad decisions.
Sometimes these old threads throw me for a loop. Thought I was in the twilight zone reading some of these comments. Until I realized.
I’ll say Celtics also.
I’ll say Celtics also.
LA would have to, at a minimum, get three superstars to even be able to compete with Golden State since LA will be fairly talent deficient if they trade for Kawhi. Chances are they'll have to get rid of their current best player, Julius Randle, because of financial reasons to be able to do the LeBron + George + Kawhi thing. And at least one of their 2nd or 3rd best players, Kyle Kuzma and Brandon Ingram, will likely have to be shipped out in a trade for Kawhi.
That leaves the following players under contract: Deng for 18 million lol, Lonzo Ball, Ingram/Kuzma, Tyler Ennis, Josh Hart, Zubac, and Thomas Bryant. That's an absolutely horrendous supporting cast for their big 3.
Yeah, that Ainge had no clue what he was doing. Really good call, guys.
That roster construction you laid out has very close to 0% chance of happening.
There are numerous moving parts involved, but I’ll tackle a few.
The odds of Deng being on the roster with James and George are minimal. They will try to dump Deng to clear cap space, or they may stretch him as a last resort.
I wouldn’t say that “chances are” they will lose Randle. If they move Deng, they can sign both James and George to max deals and then re-sign Randle. Possibly they would still let Randle walk if someone else offers him too much in free agency.
The Kawhi thing is still a long shot, imo. You are right that some key assets would go out in a deal like that. Randle would possibly be one of those, and it could even happen during the season.
If the Lakers do sign a combination of James, George, ..., the roster is going to include some ring chasing vets.
Anyway, leaving out the Kawhi thing for now, the Lakers could have a roster of James, George, Randle, Ball, Ingram, Kuzma, Hart, + whatever ring chasers. That could include re-signing Lopez, etc.
Maybe one of those guys has to be attached to Deng in a trade, like Russell had to be attached to the Mozgov deal. But even then, maybe you are losing one of those young guys but replacing him with a vet on an exception (i.e., a better player right now).
Edit to add: Ennis, Zubac, and Bryant’s contracts are all team options for 2018-2019.
Last edited:
Which team doesn't have Lavar Ball hanging around? I'll go with that team....
This is about what I'm thinking. Hard to believe that LA will get back to their glory years, wasting time on Lavar and Lonzo.
