Spurs named Team of the Decade in ESPN the Magazines franchise issue
- Thread starter Da King
- Start date
I think it's LA, more titles have actually won back to back(something San antonio has never done) and usually sonned the spurs in the playoffs
Youhadasparkwhenustarted
Superstar
I hate the spurs, but I have never seen a team maximize their talent the way the Spurs have the last 12 years, and it's as much a testament to the quality of their front office and Greg P. as it is the players.
ESPN factors in everything breh, Spurs>>Lakers or any team the last decade
anotherfor the GOAT franchise
slaps fake cuban cig out PE's mouth.
lets research the facts about the spurs winning 3 ships in the 2000's but never repeating. see the link below
Spurs Championships this since 2000 | Basketball-Reference.com
NOw lets research the facts about the Lakers winning 5 ships since 2000, and repeating multiple times.
Los Angeles Lakers OWNS the 2000's | Basketball-Reference.com
a three peat, then a back 2 back run. thats what you call a "DYNASTY" you cant call yourself a Dynasty unless you actually rule for more then one year. you cant get the crown get knocked off. then get it back. get knocked off. get it back then get knocked off and you havent seen it since that last time you had one. the lakers RULED over your peasants for 3 years straight. aged out, then came back and did it again for 2 more years.
more ships in 2000, while winning back 2 back ships. the 2nd hardest thing to do after winning your first ship is to win one the follow year. thats something the spurs has NEVER done.
THe lakers.. WE RUN this decade . and dont come in talking about buu buu but we have more wins per season then youuuuu. SO WHAT. who cares about in season ins when you aint winning it all? yall do, but we dont. 5 rings, a three peat and a back 2 back. /THREAD
the kid
Real Esquire, Not the Magazine
U mad?????
Spurs in '13
Spurs in '13
yes you have. UTAH during sloans coaching tenure. he did the same thing. maximized that roster to its fullest. that wasnt enough because his guys were not as good as the spurs and even though people aint trying to live in san an. atleast its no taxes. NO ONE black is trying to move to UTAH if they're not drafted by them or traded to them. UTAH is the last stop.
Non Sequitur
Creep.
Let's just consider this the Spurs' eulogy, because they're fukking done 
malbaker86
Gators
Over the Patriots?
I don't even like the Patoriots (Jets fan here) but even I'mat this article.
Yes, I'm a fan of both Jets and Giants, what
Spygate
malbaker86
Gators
This is some bs the lakers have five titles the spurs 4 lakers have 2 repeats spurs 0
Probably the 34-48 record in 05 AND missing the playoffs that year factored into it. The Spurs meanwhile, won 50 or more games every season last decade
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
plus they own them head to head
BS pick, def should've been the Lakers....and I hate them.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
I'm more of a Lakers fan (after the Knicks) but tbh the Spurs have been more consistent ever since Duncan got there, I think their payroll has mostly been under the Lakers' and overal they've been able to scout better than the Lakers (who have had bench issues a couple of years). So it's not really about who's won more (that's LA) or who owns who (LA owns SA), but more about who's been more consistent and achieved more with less IMO.
With all that said, I think their window is closed now
With all that said, I think their window is closed now
like every year
R.E.N. Spells Ren
Veteran
I'm more of a Lakers fan (after the Knicks) but tbh the Spurs have been more consistent ever since Duncan got there, I think their payroll has mostly been under the Lakers' and overal they've been able to scout better than the Lakers (who have had bench issues a couple of years). So it's not really about who's won more (that's LA) or who owns who (LA owns SA), but more about who's been more consistent and achieved more with less IMO.
With all that said, I think their window is closed now
like every year
Of the ten years, these teams won 7 titles. Lakers 4, Spurs 3. In the three years neither won, the Lakers knocked the spurs out of the playoffs.
So the Lakers have more titles and finished further in the playoffs during those off years.
@ anyone picking the Spurs over the Lakers.
mbewane
Knicks: 93 til infinity
Of the ten years, these teams won 7 titles. Lakers 4, Spurs 3. In the three years neither won, the Lakers knocked the spurs out of the playoffs.
So the Lakers have more titles and finished further in the playoffs during those off years.
Again breh, what I was aiming at wasn't the fact that the Lakers weren't the better team (we all know that) but the fact that the Spurs as an organization may have been better managed than the Lakers. More consistent, less payrol, more stability, that kind of stuff.
Maybe an opposite example would explain better what I'm saying: I'm sure that the Knicks during the Isiah era was the worst FRANCHISE in all of sports (I hope for other franchises anyway
) even though we weren't the worst TEAM in the NBA: the awful contracts, the huge payload, the changing of coaches, all that stuff. But yeah, the Lakers IMO are the better team of the decade, no doubt about that. Can't speak for other leagues tho.