Vote for the "...of the Decade"

[garnett_21]

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/poll...hlights-decade

Click the above link to vote for the "____ of the Decade". Voting ends by December 18th, as that's when they start announcing the winners on ESPN.

[jeebus86]

This is how i voted:

1. Franchise of the Decade: Lakers
2. Team of the Decade: 99-00 Lakers
3. Player of the Decade: Kobe
4. Shot of the Decade: Robert Horry's 3-pointer
5. Playoff game of the Decade: 99-00 Lakers vs Blazers Game 7
6. Finals Performance: 99-00 Shaq, but I think it should be 08-09 Kobe
7. Nickname: The Big Aristotle, but i think it should be the Black Mamba
8. Performance of the Decade: Kobe's 81
9. NBA Finals of the Decade: Lakers over Pacers
10. Playoff series of the Decade: 99-00 Lakers vs. Blazers

[gladdyontherise]

How can america be so blind to not vote the Spurs as team of the decade? I get it no one likes them but they have not only won championships but when they didnt they were still considered a major possibility to win it all...

[jeebus86]

Originally Posted by gladdyontherise

How can america be so blind to not vote the Spurs as team of the decade? I get it no one likes them but they have not only won championships but when they didnt they were still considered a major possibility to win it all...

Lakers have 6 Finals appearances and 4 Championships

Spurs have 3 Finals appearances and have 3 Championships

Also the Lakers are 4-1 against the Spurs in a playoff series

It's pretty simple to see why people pick the Lakers over the Spurs.

[garnett_21]

Originally Posted by jeebus86

Lakers have 6 Finals appearances and 4 Championships

Spurs have 3 Finals appearances and have 3 Championships

Also the Lakers are 4-1 against the Spurs in a playoff series

It's pretty simple to see why people pick the Lakers over the Spurs.

But...the Spurs have been contenders in every season this decade...Lakers haven't been...I voted for the Spurs, and was honestly shocked at the 3:1 ratio of votes.

Oh, and I voted for KG for player, knowing he really has no shot...

[jeebus86]

Originally Posted by garnett_21

But...the Spurs have been contenders in every season this decade...Lakers haven't been...I voted for the Spurs, and was honestly shocked at the 3:1 ratio of votes.

Oh, and I voted for KG for player, knowing he really has no shot...

Still, the numbers don't lie, and quite frankly, I more impressed that a team could have a dynasty, break it down and rebuild it into another potential dynasty ALL in the same decade.

[gladdyontherise]

Originally Posted by jeebus86

Lakers have 6 Finals appearances and 4 Championships

Spurs have 3 Finals appearances and have 3 Championships

Also the Lakers are 4-1 against the Spurs in a playoff series

It's pretty simple to see why people pick the Lakers over the Spurs.

Lakers also had a run for 3 years i think? where they were completely irrelevant, San Antonio has been relevant every year this decade...

[jeebus86]

Originally Posted by gladdyontherise

Lakers also had a run for 3 years i think? where they were completely irrelevant, San Antonio has been relevant every year this decade...

Yeah, that was the rebuilding part I was talking about, and look at them now, they are now Champions again.

That's the thing that impresses me the most, the fact that they were able to rebuild from one championship team to another and such a short amount of time. It takes most teams YEARS before they could rebuild another championship teams. Look at the Celtics, it took them around 20 yrs before they could have another championship team, and look at the Bulls, it's been over 10 yrs. and they still haven't produced another championship contender.

Again, the fact that the Lakers were able to do this all in the same decade is impressive.

The Spurs have just been dragging an old flame that will eventually fade out.

[garnett_21]

Originally Posted by jeebus86

Yeah, that was the rebuilding part I was talking about, and look at them now, they are now Champions again.

That's the thing that impresses me the most, the fact that they were able to rebuild from one championship team to another and such a short amount of time. It takes most teams YEARS before they could rebuild another championship teams. Look at the Celtics, it took them around 20 yrs before they could have another championship team, and look at the Bulls, it's been over 10 yrs. and they still haven't produced another championship contender.

Again, the fact that the Lakers were able to do this all in the same decade is impressive.

The Spurs have just been dragging an old flame that will eventually fade out.

But, in all reality, they really didn't rebuild...rebuilding, to me, is when you get rid of your superstar(s) and start over fresh...they have kept Kobe, so, to me, they aren't the true definition of a rebuilt team.

[jeebus86]

Originally Posted by garnett_21

But, in all reality, they really didn't rebuild...rebuilding, to me, is when you get rid of your superstar(s) and start over fresh...they have kept Kobe, so, to me, they aren't the true definition of a rebuilt team.

Yeah, we had Kobe, but only Kobe. Keep in mind, we didn't just lose Shaq that summer, we practically lost all our veteran role players, essentially losing all chemistry we had during the 3-peat era. So yeah, even though we had Kobe, i would still consider it a rebuilding stage for the Lakers, since we had to rebuild a team around him.