colortv Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yeah, arenas are irrelevant in this discussion lol. I would group the Knicks, 76ers, Pistons and now the Spurs together as 2nd tier franchise. The NBA`s flagships are definitely:BostonLA LakersChicago2nd TierNew YorkPhiladelphiaDetroitSan AntonioMiami3rd TierDallasHoustonPhoenixPortlandIndianaMehUtahTorontoWashingtonOrlandoBrooklynAtlantaClevelandDenverOKCBottom of the BarrelCharlotteNew OrleansMinnesotaClippersGolden StateMilwaukeeMemphisSacramentoI'd put the Warriors in the "Meh" category WAY before I'd consider the Nuggets, Raptors, or Cavs.Why? Wilt Chamberlain(Remember he played the first 5 1/2 years of his career with them and won I believe 3 MVP's as a Warrior), Rick Barry, and a title(mid 70's somewhere) say no.The Sixers may also only have one title, but:WiltBarkleyDr. JMoses MaloneAllen Iversonand arguably 2 of the 10 greatest teams ever(67 Sixers which are one of only two teams to beat Russells Celtic's in the midst of their 11 titles in 13 seasons run) and the 83 Sixers of Dr. J and Moses.vs. a franchise like the Bulls that is utter mediocrity outside of the Jordan era. I think they are unquestionably more storied than the Pistons, and more storied than the Knicks which many these days agree are overrated in the historic sense due to their affilation with NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggens Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yeah, arenas are irrelevant in this discussion lol. I would group the Knicks, 76ers, Pistons and now the Spurs together as 2nd tier franchise. The NBA`s flagships are definitely:BostonLA LakersChicago2nd TierNew YorkPhiladelphiaDetroitSan AntonioMiami3rd TierDallasHoustonPhoenixPortlandIndianaMehUtahTorontoWashingtonOrlandoBrooklynAtlantaClevelandDenverOKCBottom of the BarrelCharlotteNew OrleansMinnesotaClippersGolden StateMilwaukeeMemphisSacramentoNot very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigers6884 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Yeah, arenas are irrelevant in this discussion lol. I would group the Knicks, 76ers, Pistons and now the Spurs together as 2nd tier franchise. The NBA`s flagships are definitely:BostonLA LakersChicago 2nd TierNew YorkPhiladelphiaDetroitSan AntonioMiami 3rd TierDallasHoustonPhoenixPortlandIndiana MehUtahTorontoWashingtonOrlandoBrooklynAtlantaClevelandDenverOKC Bottom of the BarrelCharlotteNew OrleansMinnesotaClippersGolden StateMilwaukeeMemphisSacramentoI'd put the Warriors in the "Meh" category WAY before I'd consider the Nuggets, Raptors, or Cavs. Why? Wilt Chamberlain(Remember he played the first 5 1/2 years of his career with them and won I believe 3 MVP's as a Warrior), Rick Barry, and a title(mid 70's somewhere) say no.The Sixers may also only have one title, but:WiltBarkleyDr. JMoses MaloneAllen Iversonand arguably 2 of the 10 greatest teams ever(67 Sixers which are one of only two teams to beat Russells Celtic's in the midst of their 11 titles in 13 seasons run) and the 83 Sixers of Dr. J and Moses.vs. a franchise like the Bulls that is utter mediocrity outside of the Jordan era. I think they are unquestionably more storied than the Pistons, and more storied than the Knicks which many these days agree are overrated in the historic sense due to their affilation with NY.The Pistons had Bill Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas, Dennis Rodman, and Joe Dumars. And that was just in one era! They also have had a mostly healthy Grant Hill, Chauncey Billups, and to go old school, Bob Lanier. They defeated a heavily favored Lakers team as an underdog in both 1989 and 2004. Though I do agree, both the Knicks and Bulls are both overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Also the Pistons once played in that fabulous Lutheran mecca known as Fort Wayne! On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The Pistons had two runs of success. Outside of that, a lot of nothing played in some blah arenas. Sorry kid, but I'm not including them as one of the most storied basketball teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I'm still waiting to see how MIAMI got up into someone's top tier(s) of basketball lore... *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadmanLA Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 Eventually, you would have to include the Spurs as one of these "storied" franchises. Outside of the mid-80s, they've been the most consistently successful franchise in the NBA...from Gervin to Robinson to Duncan. Thirty-eight seasons in the NBA (47 total if you count their ABA years), and only four losing seasons, plus they have the second-best all-time win percentage in NBA history (just barely above the Celtics by three-hundredths of a percentage point).The Bulls really have three periods of (relative) success: the early-to-mid 70s (two trips to the West Finals in '74 and '75), the Jordan title runs, and this Derrick Rose/Joakim Noah era. Mediocre to flat-out awful in-between...although Jordan's Bulls made the playoffs in his first years in the Association, they still had losing records every year.As for the Heat, with another ten or so years of consistent success, maybe we can put them as a "storied" franchise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigers6884 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The Pistons had two runs of success. Outside of that, a lot of nothing played in some blah arenas. Sorry kid, but I'm not including them as one of the most storied basketball teams.Right, and we all know how the Sixers had dynasty years....I'm still waiting to see how MIAMI got up into someone's top tier(s) of basketball lore...Keep waiting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbadefense1990 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I'm still waiting to see how MIAMI got up into someone's top tier(s) of basketball lore...They're really the most consistent franchise of the set of the 1989/1990 franchise expansions (them, Minnesota, Orlando and Charlotte). For the 1st couple of years, they were at the mid-pack of the East and contending for the 8th seed with Glen Rice at the helm. Then Miami grew into the near-contending role with Alonzo Mourning, Tim Hardaway, Dan Majerle in his late years, Jamal Mashburn and all others. They would have given the Jordan-Bulls and Miller-Pacers a run for their money if they didn't have to butt-heads with those mediocre late-1990s Knicks in the playoffs.Then they got the services of Wade in his prime and an aging Shaq who got the Heat their 1st title before he rusted of old age. After a rough year or two after the first championship, LeBron arrived there, and you know how the rest of this story went.For me, these would be my top NBA franchises:1a. Lakers1b. Celtics3. Spurs4. Heat5. Bulls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbadefense1990 Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 The Pistons had Bill Laimbeer, Isiah Thomas, Dennis Rodman, and Joe Dumars. And that was just in one era! They also have had a mostly healthy Grant Hill, Chauncey Billups, and to go old school, Bob Lanier. They defeated a heavily favored Lakers team as an underdog in both 1989 and 2004. Though I do agree, both the Knicks and Bulls are both overrated.Definitely the 2004 Pistons team was the heavy underdog against the Lakers. In 1989, however, both LA and Detroit entered the postseason as equals, but the Lakers were given the slight edge because they got to the NBA Finals going 11-0 in the postseason, while the Pistons had to endure Michael Jordan in the East Finals.Pat Riley, worried of LA's rustiness for the title series, over-practices the Lakers, resulting in Byron Scott and Magic Johnson blowing their hamstrings out. Detroit then proceeds to sweep the Lakers, though three of the four wins were close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiddySicks Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Yeah, arenas are irrelevant in this discussion lol. I would group the Knicks, 76ers, Pistons and now the Spurs together as 2nd tier franchise. The NBA`s flagships are definitely:BostonLA LakersChicago2nd TierNew YorkPhiladelphiaDetroitSan AntonioMiami3rd TierDallasHoustonPhoenixPortlandIndianaMehUtahTorontoWashingtonOrlandoBrooklynAtlantaClevelandDenverOKCBottom of the BarrelCharlotteNew OrleansMinnesotaClippersGolden StateMilwaukeeMemphisSacramentoI'd put the Warriors in the "Meh" category WAY before I'd consider the Nuggets, Raptors, or Cavs.Why? Wilt Chamberlain(Remember he played the first 5 1/2 years of his career with them and won I believe 3 MVP's as a Warrior), Rick Barry, and a title(mid 70's somewhere) say no.Cool if you want to put them there, but please tell me how the Cavs, Nuggets, and the Toronto freaking Raptors are above them on this list. I guess it doesn't really matter, as this is a discussion about teams who suck vs teams that REALLY suck, but still... On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said: She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Eventually, you would have to include the Spurs as one of these "storied" franchises. Outside of the mid-80s, they've been the most consistently successful franchise in the NBA...from Gervin to Robinson to Duncan. Thirty-eight seasons in the NBA (47 total if you count their ABA years), and only four losing seasons, plus they have the second-best all-time win percentage in NBA history (just barely above the Celtics by three-hundredths of a percentage point).The Bulls really have three periods of (relative) success: the early-to-mid 70s (two trips to the West Finals in '74 and '75), the Jordan title runs, and this Derrick Rose/Joakim Noah era. Mediocre to flat-out awful in-between...although Jordan's Bulls made the playoffs in his first years in the Association, they still had losing records every year.As for the Heat, with another ten or so years of consistent success, maybe we can put them as a "storied" franchise.I tihnk it's hard to become a "storied" franchise in an era where every team and player can be watched by everyone at any time, and everyone knows everything about every player and can go on the internet and watch highlights, and we know all the dirt on everyone. Part of being "storied" was just that - people told stories, and that's how you heard about a lot of things. Wilt Chamberlain was like 9' 13", could dunk from the locker room, and had a wang the size of a Buick. Even Jordan - not everyone had cable when he was becoming a star, and nobody could go on-line and read about his transgressions. He was also on the "game of the week" back when there was only one "gotw", and he seemed larger than life. It's just different in this era.The Spurs will never be a "storied" franchise, no matter now many championships they win. The thing about "storied" is that somebody needs to want to hear the story. This is going to sound harsh, but it's true - nothing that happens in San Antonio really matters to anyone outside of Texas. It's just not a glamorous place. Nothing against it or its fine citizens, but it lacks the "charm" of some other small-market towns, and the glam of the bigger markets, or the national significance of some others. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJKiddsHead Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 This discussion get weird because of the words people are using. storied, flagship, relevant etc all mean slightly different things. A lot of teams are one or a combination of those and a lot of them are none, but they don't mean the same thing.The Knicks are definitely a "flagship" franchise. If you look at the NBA teams as brands under one corporation, the Knicks brand is incredibly valuable. Historic arena, biggest city in the country, been in the league since the beginning, and a fanbase that is loyal almost to their own detriment. People who don't even really follow basketball still make references to someone pulling a "Willis Reed". The most prominent black director in American history sits courtside in their building every night wearing goofy outfits and being obnoxious. Knicks fans invade the arenas of lesser fanbases (Atlanta, Philly, DC, Charlotte, Brooklyn, Orlando, Miami) even when the Knicks suck. Like it or not (I hate it), the Knicks are an integral part of the NBA's identity as a league. Period.The Celtics are storied. They have an insane amount of retired numbers hanging up. They were the greatest dynasty in NBA history. They've had four different championship eras. They kept basically the same uniform design through all of it (yes, this matters when talking about "storied"). They were integral in maybe the greatest player-to-player rivalry in the history of the sport, a rivalry that helped pull the NBA out of the tape-delay dark ages. Basically, Celtic history is NBA history.The Spurs are relevant. Maybe not in the ratings sense, but when you talk about the NBA's most consistent teams in since the merger, they can't be left out. They've only missed the playoffs 4 times in that stretch and 3 of those were in the 80s. They've won 4 championships. In the last 17 years, their worst winning percentage was .610. They've had 5 HOFers in the NBA and a HOF coach. It's hard to imagine the playoffs without San Antonio being involved.The Lakers are all of the above, for reasons.I like to simplify it to which teams feel like they "matter" more (and this is pretty unbiased, seeing as I rightfully put my team near the bottom)Tier 1 (Team NBA)LakersTier 2 (Not As Big A Deal As The Lakers But A Bigger Deal Than The Spurs)CelticsKnicksBullsTier 3 (They Just "Feel" More Historically Significant Than Tier 4)Spurs76ersRocketsPistonsWarriorsHeatSunsPacersBlazersTier 4 (If They're Good, Great. If They Suck, Who Cares?)JazzNetsHawksMavericksMagicPelicansBucksKingsRaptorsTimberwolvesThunder (not to be confused with the Sonics, who were a Tier 3 team)Zombie HornetsGrizzliesWizardsNuggetsClippersCavaliers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burkell007 Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 This discussion get weird because of the words people are using. storied, flagship, relevant etc all mean slightly different things. A lot of teams are one or a combination of those and a lot of them are none, but they don't mean the same thing.The Knicks are definitely a "flagship" franchise. If you look at the NBA teams as brands under one corporation, the Knicks brand is incredibly valuable. Historic arena, biggest city in the country, been in the league since the beginning, and a fanbase that is loyal almost to their own detriment. People who don't even really follow basketball still make references to someone pulling a "Willis Reed". The most prominent black director in American history sits courtside in their building every night wearing goofy outfits and being obnoxious. Knicks fans invade the arenas of lesser fanbases (Atlanta, Philly, DC, Charlotte, Brooklyn, Orlando, Miami) even when the Knicks suck. Like it or not (I hate it), the Knicks are an integral part of the NBA's identity as a league. Period.The Celtics are storied. They have an insane amount of retired numbers hanging up. They were the greatest dynasty in NBA history. They've had four different championship eras. They kept basically the same uniform design through all of it (yes, this matters when talking about "storied"). They were integral in maybe the greatest player-to-player rivalry in the history of the sport, a rivalry that helped pull the NBA out of the tape-delay dark ages. Basically, Celtic history is NBA history.The Spurs are relevant. Maybe not in the ratings sense, but when you talk about the NBA's most consistent teams in since the merger, they can't be left out. They've only missed the playoffs 4 times in that stretch and 3 of those were in the 80s. They've won 4 championships. In the last 17 years, their worst winning percentage was .610. They've had 5 HOFers in the NBA and a HOF coach. It's hard to imagine the playoffs without San Antonio being involved.The Lakers are all of the above, for reasons.I like to simplify it to which teams feel like they "matter" more (and this is pretty unbiased, seeing as I rightfully put my team near the bottom)Tier 1 (Team NBA)LakersTier 2 (Not As Big A Deal As The Lakers But A Bigger Deal Than The Spurs)CelticsKnicksBullsTier 3 (They Just "Feel" More Historically Significant Than Tier 4)Spurs76ersRocketsPistonsWarriorsHeatSunsPacersBlazersTier 4 (If They're Good, Great. If They Suck, Who Cares?)JazzNetsHawksMavericksMagicPelicansBucksKingsRaptorsTimberwolvesThunder (not to be confused with the Sonics, who were a Tier 3 team)Zombie HornetsGrizzliesWizardsNuggetsClippersCavalierssWhy did you put the lakers by them selfs??? If you put the lakers there the celtics and Knicks and bulls join then, that is unless your a homer laker fan.....that or explain your "reasons" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJKiddsHead Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I'm not a Lakers fan, I'm a Nets fan who recognizes most people don't care about the Nets.The Knicks haven't won anything close to Lakers. Down a notch.The Celtics have never been as interesting to the American public as the Lakers. Down a notch.The Spurs and Bulls haven't won for as long as the Lakers have. Down a notch.The Lakers have missed the playoff SIX times since in their 66 seasons. They've been to the NBA Finals 31 of those 60 playoff appearances and won the championship 16 of those 31 times. They've had four different winning eras and even when the Russell dynasty was at it's height, the Lakers were there every year. They had the first "great" big man. The NBA Logo is a Laker. One of the greatest owners in American sports was a Laker. Three of the five greatest centers ever are Lakers. The closest guard to MJ since MJ is a Laker. The best point guard ever is a Laker. Showtime. Jack. The celebs in the stands. The color scheme. Pretty much every non-Lakers fan hates the Lakers. Probably the most recognizable basketball team in the world. The 2nd biggest city in the country. The only major city in America where the success of the NBA team seems to be the most important thing in sports. They're essentially "team California" while the Warriors and Clippers are just happy to take 2nd place and the Kings are just happy to exist at all. They're the New York Yankees of basketball.The Lakers are what you get when you mix the major city relevance of the Knicks with the winning resume of the Celtics. The are the team in the NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Oh the Lakers are absolutely by themselves. They're just "different". There's simply no argument that any team is more important to the league historically or currently than them. Even the Celtics go through periods of irrelevancy. When the Lakers suck, they're still very much relevant.Obviously everyone's definition of "matters" is going to be different, but by mine, I'd say that there's no way that teams like the Pacers and Spurs "matter". The league would have been so much better off had the all the Spurs' success happened to a number of other teams. Obviously to true fans of the sport, they matter a whole lot. But in the grand scheme of things, not one bit. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 That we're having this discussion just shows what a mess the NBA is. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DG_ThenNowForever Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 This discussion get weird because of the words people are using. storied, flagship, relevant etc all mean slightly different things. A lot of teams are one or a combination of those and a lot of them are none, but they don't mean the same thing.The Knicks are definitely a "flagship" franchise. If you look at the NBA teams as brands under one corporation, the Knicks brand is incredibly valuable. Historic arena, biggest city in the country, been in the league since the beginning, and a fanbase that is loyal almost to their own detriment. People who don't even really follow basketball still make references to someone pulling a "Willis Reed". The most prominent black director in American history sits courtside in their building every night wearing goofy outfits and being obnoxious. Knicks fans invade the arenas of lesser fanbases (Atlanta, Philly, DC, Charlotte, Brooklyn, Orlando, Miami) even when the Knicks suck. Like it or not (I hate it), the Knicks are an integral part of the NBA's identity as a league. Period.The Celtics are storied. They have an insane amount of retired numbers hanging up. They were the greatest dynasty in NBA history. They've had four different championship eras. They kept basically the same uniform design through all of it (yes, this matters when talking about "storied"). They were integral in maybe the greatest player-to-player rivalry in the history of the sport, a rivalry that helped pull the NBA out of the tape-delay dark ages. Basically, Celtic history is NBA history.The Spurs are relevant. Maybe not in the ratings sense, but when you talk about the NBA's most consistent teams in since the merger, they can't be left out. They've only missed the playoffs 4 times in that stretch and 3 of those were in the 80s. They've won 4 championships. In the last 17 years, their worst winning percentage was .610. They've had 5 HOFers in the NBA and a HOF coach. It's hard to imagine the playoffs without San Antonio being involved.The Lakers are all of the above, for reasons.I like to simplify it to which teams feel like they "matter" more (and this is pretty unbiased, seeing as I rightfully put my team near the bottom)Tier 1 (Team NBA)LakersTier 2 (Not As Big A Deal As The Lakers But A Bigger Deal Than The Spurs)CelticsKnicksBullsTier 3 (They Just "Feel" More Historically Significant Than Tier 4)Spurs76ersRocketsPistonsWarriorsHeatSunsPacersBlazersTier 4 (If They're Good, Great. If They Suck, Who Cares?)JazzNetsHawksMavericksMagicPelicansBucksKingsRaptorsTimberwolvesThunder (not to be confused with the Sonics, who were a Tier 3 team)Zombie HornetsGrizzliesWizardsNuggetsClippersCavaliersThis is the Bill Simmonsest post I've ever seen on the board, but I mean that in a good way. Nicely done.Too bad the Knicks didn't win in 1994. Then they and the Rangers would be perfect analogues to one other, for the reasons you describe. 1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said: and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xist2inspire Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Honestly, I've been an NBA fan my entire life, and I've never looked at the Knicks the same way as franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Boston Celtics, etc. The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother." I remember being stunned (and rather annoyed) to discover that, despite the hype they get sometimes, they've only won two NBA titles. I feel that if you take "New York" out of the equation, you get a franchise that's no doubt lumped in with teams like the Sixers, Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, and Heat, who are all big deals, but not really BIG deals, y'know?If there's one thing we can all agree on though, it's that Milwaukee doesn't matter. This thread's about them, and they've been cast aside in favor of a more interesting topic. Tradition is the foundation of innovation, and not the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted April 26, 2014 Share Posted April 26, 2014 Honestly, I've been an NBA fan my entire life, and I've never looked at the Knicks the same way as franchises like the Dallas Cowboys, LA Lakers, NY Yankees, Boston Celtics, etc. The Knicks always seemed like wannabe blowhards to me, out of the Giants, Yankees, and Rangers, they're the clear "little brother." I remember being stunned (and rather annoyed) to discover that despite the hype they get sometimes, that they've only won two NBA titles. I feel that if you take "New York" out of the equation, you get a franchise that's no doubt lumped in with teams like the Sixers, Bulls, Pistons, Spurs, and Heat, who are all big deals, but not really BIG deals, y'know?If there's one thing we can all agree on though, it's that Milwaukee doesn't matter. This thread's about them, and they've been cast aside in favor of a more interesting topic. LOL... I had to double check the title of the thread to even remember what it was about. I've just been clicking and replying blindly for the past couple of pages.Threads like this are just begging for a good old-fashioned Clevejacking! "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.