MR

I'm not a big NBA fan anymore but the Celtics are looking scary good. They're about ready to break the mark for best start to a season if they win the next game. In my opinion, both Garnett and Pierce can play better than they have been, which is a nightmare for other teams, considering they've only lost two games.

Gave up on the Pats this year, huh?

Fuck the Celtics

Ehwmatt wrote:Fuck the Celtics

18 wins in a row.

Balances out that depressing as all hell 18 game losing streak 2 years ago.

That's my team...THE Boston Celtics!

NealIsGod wrote:Gave up on the Pats this year, huh?

I'm not a Pats or Celts fan...Cowboys and Lakers, actually.

Anyway, long time no see! Good to see you, buddy.

It looks like the Celtics have their eye set on the 95-96 Bulls team who won an astonishing 72 freakin' games. For those of you who are not NBA fans...There are only 82 games in a season. This Celtics team has no Michael Jordan but certainly has a better center (which isn't saying much). Also, both Garnett and Pierce are better players than Scottie Pippin ever was and Ray Allen was probably a better player in his younger years. I think Rajon Rondo is going to be an elite NBA point guard for many years to come. He's the only player who I've ever seen get better every game he plays.

Did I mention the Bruins also have the best record in the Eastern Conference and only San Jose has a better record in the entire NHL? The Patriots won't win a thing this year, but perhaps the Celtics can repeat. Now, I just need to Red Sox to sign Mark Teixiera and get another arm.

The Spurs beat the Celtics every time since 96-97.

I think that my team needs to integrate their new players better and get the Foreign Legion of Parker and Ginobili into better shape but I like my team's potential.

Doc Rivers has done a phenomenal job with the Celtics in cultivating a winning attitude. I can't wait until the Spurs meet the Celtics in Finals.

It's an ODD-YEAR and Vegas has the Spurs at 20-1. That is a bet I can't walk away from.

conversationpc wrote:I'm not a big NBA fan anymore but the Celtics are looking scary good. They're about ready to break the mark for best start to a season if they win the next game. In my opinion, both Garnett and Pierce can play better than they have been, which is a nightmare for other teams, considering they've only lost two games.

They are awesome (and I've loved Rondo ever since his college days) but, to paraphrase Doc Rivers "As good as we are, Cleveland is only 2 games behind us!"

The Beasts are indeed rising in the East.

X factor wrote:

conversationpc wrote:I'm not a big NBA fan anymore but the Celtics are looking scary good. They're about ready to break the mark for best start to a season if they win the next game. In my opinion, both Garnett and Pierce can play better than they have been, which is a nightmare for other teams, considering they've only lost two games.

They are awesome (and I've loved Rondo ever since his college days) but, to paraphrase Doc Rivers "As good as we are, Cleveland is only 2 games behind us!"

The Beasts are indeed rising in the East.

YEAH BBAABBEEEYYYYYY!!!!!!!!

ttango1 wrote:The Spurs beat the Celtics every time since 96-97.

So did just about every other team in the NBA. What's your point? The Celtics have been a mostly irrelevant franchise since Reggie Lewis died. It's been a long 20 years but as far as I can tell, the Celtics won the championship last season and the Spurs weren't their opponent.

One other thing...check your facts. The Celtics beat the Spurs in San Antonio on March 17, 2007 by a score of 91-85. A great and dominant Spurs team beating up on a pathetic Celtics team (which they were, prior to drafting Rondo and trading for Garnett and Allen) isn't really news. I can assure no Red Sox fans brag about beating up on the Yankees when they suck, because it's doesn't even matter.

Fuck the NBA! Forty percent of the players have criminal records and most father seventy-nine illegitimate children. Where are the role models?

Enigma869 wrote:...Now, I just need to Red Sox to sign Mark Teixiera and get another arm.

Yanks, Angels or Red Sox. Once Bor-ass is through milking these teams against each other for as much as he can, then we'll finally know where he lands. It wouldn't surprise me if he does land with the Yanks though.

Uno_up wrote:Yanks, Angels or Red Sox. Once Bor-ass is through milking these teams against each other for as much as he can, then we'll finally know where he lands. It wouldn't surprise me if he does land with the Yanks though.

Teixiera isn't signing with the Yankees. If it's not the Red Sox, he'll end up toiling away in obscurity for a pathetic Orioles team or even worse Nationals team. I don't believe the Angels ever had a shot of signing the guy, because he's an east coast guy and made it pretty clear that he prefers the intensity of east coast fans.

Enigma869 wrote:Teixiera isn't signing with the Yankees. If it's not the Red Sox, he'll end up toiling away in obscurity for a pathetic Orioles team or even worse Nationals team. I don't believe the Angels ever had a shot of signing the guy, because he's an east coast guy and made it pretty clear that he prefers the intensity of east coast fans.

???...The Yankees need him more than the Sox. Sure, the Yanks loaded up on pitching this off-season, but they are close to losing Abreu, and have lost Giambi while just gaining Swisher and his something like .219 average (who can also play CF besides 1st). I mean, if you're going to give $25 million per, they should simply offer Teixeira close to $200 million for 8 years. You'll take him away from Boston, (knowing they won't sign Manny) and you get a stud defensive 1b (on a weak defensive team), and the money is irrelevant. In 3-4 years, Damon, Matsui, Posada, Rivera and possibly even Jeter will all be off the books so it's not like Teixeira's $25 million will be such a burden. Plus, improved economy by then and new stadium means revenues will be gigantic.

Uno_up wrote:The Yankees need him more than the Sox. Sure, the Yanks loaded up on pitching this off-season, but they are close to losing Abreu, and have lost Giambi while just gaining Swisher and his something like .219 average (who can also play CF besides 1st). I mean, if you're going to give $25 million per, they should simply offer Teixeira close to $200 million for 8 years. You'll take him away from Boston, (knowing they won't sign Manny) and you get a stud defensive 1b (on a weak defensive team), and the money is irrelevant. In 3-4 years, Damon, Matsui, Posada, Rivera and possibly even Jeter will all be off the books so it's not like Teixeira's $25 million will be such a burden. Plus, improved economy by then and new stadium means revenues will be gigantic.

I still think it's far more likely the Yankees will sign Manny than Teixeira.

Enigma869 wrote:

Uno_up wrote:The Yankees need him more than the Sox. Sure, the Yanks loaded up on pitching this off-season, but they are close to losing Abreu, and have lost Giambi while just gaining Swisher and his something like .219 average (who can also play CF besides 1st). I mean, if you're going to give $25 million per, they should simply offer Teixeira close to $200 million for 8 years. You'll take him away from Boston, (knowing they won't sign Manny) and you get a stud defensive 1b (on a weak defensive team), and the money is irrelevant. In 3-4 years, Damon, Matsui, Posada, Rivera and possibly even Jeter will all be off the books so it's not like Teixeira's $25 million will be such a burden. Plus, improved economy by then and new stadium means revenues will be gigantic.

I still think it's far more likely the Yankees will sign Manny than Teixeira.

But why shell out 25 mill for Manny when you can have Tex?...makes ZERO sense...that's why I believe the Yanks are spreading a bunch of horseshit around. The rumor that the Yanks are signing Manny is bullshit, and the rumor was probably started by Manny/Boras.

Watch...The Yanks are secretly negotiating with Boras for a 10 year, 200 mill contract. They have a need at 1st...they don't have a need for a 37-year old leftfielding a-hole who hates being hounded by the media and can potentially be a cancer in the clubhouse.

Couple that with Manny definitely not signing with the Sox, so the Sox brass will be holding their nut sack again when the deal is finalized. To me, this has the same bad smell as the A-Rod ordeal where the Sox thought they were the only suitors...and bang, A-Rod becomes a third baseman. If the Yankees want Teixeira, they'll get him and then Theo will pounce on Abreu or Dunn for much less money for much fewer years and still get a solid bat in the lineup. He ain't no dummy.

ttango1 wrote:The Spurs beat the Celtics every time since 96-97.

I think that my team needs to integrate their new players better and get the Foreign Legion of Parker and Ginobili into better shape but I like my team's potential.

Doc Rivers has done a phenomenal job with the Celtics in cultivating a winning attitude. I can't wait until the Spurs meet the Celtics in Finals.

It's an ODD-YEAR and Vegas has the Spurs at 20-1. That is a bet I can't walk away from.

You were just lucky to get Duncan in'97....Celtics had worst record. NBA needs to change its lottery. Worst team gets FIRST pick. Again, you were lucky to get Duncan, that's all. Plus you won a championship in a strike year.

StocktontoMalone wrote:

ttango1 wrote:The Spurs beat the Celtics every time since 96-97.

I think that my team needs to integrate their new players better and get the Foreign Legion of Parker and Ginobili into better shape but I like my team's potential.

Doc Rivers has done a phenomenal job with the Celtics in cultivating a winning attitude. I can't wait until the Spurs meet the Celtics in Finals.

It's an ODD-YEAR and Vegas has the Spurs at 20-1. That is a bet I can't walk away from.

You were just lucky to get Duncan in'97....Celtics had worst record. NBA needs to change its lottery. Worst team gets FIRST pick. Again, you were lucky to get Duncan, that's all. Plus you won a championship in a strike year.

I say take the bottom five or so teams and do a lottery just for them. If you just take the worst team, unless their record is FAR worse than the other bottom feeders, a team could possibly attempt to get the worst record just to get the last pick. I think that's part of the reasoning behind the lottery system in the first place.

Who with a working functioning brain watches the NBA? Pure drama and horsehit. Hell, if I were a cop, I would hang around NBA arenas and make my arrest quota in just one game with all the thugs and felons in that league.

StocktontoMalone wrote:
You were just lucky to get Duncan in'97....Celtics had worst record. NBA needs to change its lottery. Worst team gets FIRST pick. Again, you were lucky to get Duncan, that's all. Plus you won a championship in a strike year.

They have the lottery set up this way because teams were throwing games, ie, -not trying at all, in order to fall further down in the standings, which meant rising up in the lottery position. Says somethin' about these "warriors", huh? Have to love that intensity and hunger.

Rockindeano wrote:They have the lottery set up this way because teams were throwing games, ie, -not trying at all, in order to fall further down in the standings, which meant rising up in the lottery position.

I'm not sure I've ever agreed with this reasoning. Especially with the advent of free agency. Many of the players on a team aren't going to be there the following season to reap any benefit from a high lottery pick. Also, I've never met an athlete in my life who didn't try like hell to win every game they ever compete in (the Arizona Cardinals of yesterday notwithstanding). The NBA is the only sports league who has a lottery system. The NFL simply gives the top pick to the shittiest team every season and it hasn't made much of a difference. Hell, the Bengals and Lions have had top picks for 20 straight seasons and they both still suck!

And I'll tell you another thing....And please spare me all the 'IF' talk.

Len Bias doesn't die, Reggie Doesn't die, we get Duncan, and if Larry's back doesn't give out....we'd have 20 banners right now.

StocktontoMalone wrote:And I'll tell you another thing....And please spare me all the 'IF' talk.

Len Bias doesn't die, Reggie Doesn't die, we get Duncan, and if Larry's back doesn't give out....we'd have 20 banners right now.

Silver and Black will be back!

I admire your love for your team but the Spurs aren't close to the best team in the West. Hell, they're only the third best team in their own division right now. The Lakers and Celtics are on a collision course for a re-match.

Enigma869 wrote:I admire your love for your team but the Spurs aren't close to the best team in the West. Hell, they're only the third best team in their own division right now. The Lakers and Celtics are on a collision course for a re-match.

As someone who lives in So Cal and hears about the Lakers more than I care to, I can tell you that despite their lofty record, they are just getting by instead of being dominant. They will get their asses kicked when they meet the Spurs and then, you'll find a different way to attempt to hold small market down.

FTL and as for Phil Jackson, he has never...I mean NEVER, won a championship without 2 of the best players at their positions playing for his title teams.
For the Bulls, it was Best SG MJ 23 and Best SF Scottie Pippen.
For the Lakers, it was Best Center Shaq and Best SG Kobe.

Now he only has just 1 and they got their asses waxed by the Celtics and had Ginobili been at 100%, the Lakers could've been beaten.

No this year, It's Spurs-Celtics and it will be an epic throwdown between the game's pre-eminent Power Forwards.

ttango1 wrote:As someone who lives in So Cal and hears about the Lakers more than I care to, I can tell you that despite their lofty record, they are just getting by instead of being dominant.

They are not just getting by. They are outscoring their opponents by nearly 10 points a game. Only the Celtics and Cavaliers are better in that category. Even though they are only in the middle of the pack in terms of points allowed per game, they are actually 6th in lowest FG % allowed and are 2nd in forcing turnovers. So they've improved defensively as well as being the best scoring team in the league. They don't match the Celts in defense but they are improved and I think Bynum will have improved drastically by the time the playoffs roll around if he stays healthy. They are also one of the best rebounding teams in the leauge.

ttango1 wrote:As someone who lives in So Cal and hears about the Lakers more than I care to, I can tell you that despite their lofty record, they are just getting by instead of being dominant. They will get their asses kicked when they meet the Spurs and then, you'll find a different way to attempt to hold small market down.

FTL and as for Phil Jackson, he has never...I mean NEVER, won a championship without 2 of the best players at their positions playing for his title teams.
For the Bulls, it was Best SG MJ 23 and Best SF Scottie Pippen.
For the Lakers, it was Best Center Shaq and Best SG Kobe.

Now he only has just 1 and they got their asses waxed by the Celtics and had Ginobili been at 100%, the Lakers could've been beaten.

No this year, It's Spurs-Celtics and it will be an epic throwdown between the game's pre-eminent Power Forwards.

Trying to hold a small market down? Give me a break with that stupid shit! You do realize that San Antonio is more than twice the size of Boston, right? Hell, Boston doesn't even rank in the top 20 largest metro areas in the country!

As for your comments on Phil Jackson...You'll NEVER EVER EVER hear me defend Jackson. He's the biggest fraud the NBA has ever seen and I don't rank the guy in the top 10 NBA coaches of all time, in spite of his record. Jackson has only ever taken a job that had the pieces in place to win and win immediately, and that's not a coach, as far as I'm concerned. That said, I believe that the Lakers are a MUCH better team than the Spurs are and I suspect that if the Spurs are even good enough to make it to the Western Conference Finals (which I don't believe to be likely), the Lakers will beat them in 5 games.

Enigma869 wrote:

Uno_up wrote:Yanks, Angels or Red Sox. Once Bor-ass is through milking these teams against each other for as much as he can, then we'll finally know where he lands. It wouldn't surprise me if he does land with the Yanks though.

Teixiera isn't signing with the Yankees. If it's not the Red Sox, he'll end up toiling away in obscurity for a pathetic Orioles team or even worse Nationals team. I don't believe the Angels ever had a shot of signing the guy, because he's an east coast guy and made it pretty clear that he prefers the intensity of east coast fans.

Ummmm....ok, Colonel.

Uno_up wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if he does land with the Yanks though.

Good call dude. Yankees just signed this Teixeira. The Red Sox have signed NOBODY, and this is HUGE trouble for them.

Enigma869 wrote:

Uno_up wrote: It wouldn't surprise me if he does land with the Yanks though.

Good call dude. Yankees just signed this Teixeira. The Red Sox have signed NOBODY, and this is HUGE trouble for them.

Hmmm...and for the SAME money the SAWX were offering.....Fuck Theo, Fuck John Henry....Fuck em all. When Ortiz declines even more this year, when J.D. Drew is on the DL for 5 months, and when Varitek hits his paltry .120, these guys will be wondering what the hell happened.