Go LAKERS (O.T.)

[perezfan]

I thought/wished the MVP would have gone to Gasol.... he resembled a fearless warrior (even if he wasn't the most handsome guy out there).

There's absolutely no way they could have done it without him.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I thought/wished the MVP would have gone to Gasol.... he resembled a fearless warrior (even if he wasn't the most handsome guy out there).

There's absolutely no way they could have done it without him.

I agree, although the award was going to Kobe regardless of who did what in game seven.

If the award was called "game seven MVP", it would have to go to Artest.

[Rob D.]

Pau Gasol and Danny Noonan:

[Jewish-collector]

Actually, Gasol didn't play that great at times throught the series. Even though Kobe had a poor shooting night last night, he did other things well (clutch foul shots, rebounding, passing, etc,...). The Finals MVP is awarded for the series, not just game 7.

The Celtics hurt their long term future by making the trade a few years ago for KG and Ray Allen for immediate success. They were in the finals 2 of 3 years & got one championship. It's arguable if it was the trade was a "success" or not. Rondo has potential to be a HOFer.

The short version is that the Celtics didn't have a guy that could create their own shot in the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter whereas the Lakers did (in Kobe).

I actually am a huge basketball fan, so I really enjoyed the series even though it wasn't pretty at times.

[scooter729]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

The Celtics hurt their long term future by making the trade a few years ago for KG and Ray Allen for immediate success. They were in the finals 2 of 3 years & got one championship. It's arguable if it was the trade was a "success" or not.

It's ARGUABLE? I can't see how - the Celtics went from a 24 win team in '06-'07 to an NBA Championship the next year, were a Garnett injury away from repeating in year two after the trade, and led for the majority of Game 7 of the NBA Finals in year three.

If you would go back and NOT make that trade knowing the results, then you would be foolish. Would you rather have a couple of 40 win seasons and Al Jefferson on your roster now, or two incredible seasons in a 3-year stretch? Nothing arguable about that in the least. The Garnett trade turned out to be a steal.

[Jewish-collector]

There were high draft choices involved, too. I guess a better way of putting it would be was it worth sacrificing the future ? I guess we won't know for years to come to see how all the draft choices/players pan out. I'm not from Boston, but I was a huge Celtics fan in the 1970's & 1980's. Absolutely loved them. So, I was trying to look at it objectively.

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

The Celtics hurt their long term future by making the trade a few years ago for KG and Ray Allen for immediate success. They were in the finals 2 of 3 years & got one championship. It's arguable if it was the trade was a "success" or not.

I have to agree with the above poster. Finals 2 of 3 years and a championship means you logically can not argue the success of their moves. Without those deals, the Celtics would have been mediocre at best the last few years.

EDITED TO ADD: Agree with the poster 2 posts above!!

Alan - As a Knick fan I know where you are coming from because we have sacrificed many draft picks for "big names". However if we were to have the 3 year run the Celtics have I would have been very glad to trade those picks. Many times draft choices do not work out.

[barrysloate]

It's always worth draft choices if the end result is you win a championship. You never know what you will get in the draft. Look at the Knicks. They almost always get a high draft pick and hardly any of them ever pan out. I would trade the Knicks last ten draft picks for even a single title.

Oops- Rob said the same thing as me. I missed it!

[Jewish-collector]

I agree. Ask us Bullets/Wizards fans how Kwame Brown has done as the #1 draft pick back in 2001.

Barry - Did you like Art Heyman as the Knicks # 1 choice in the 1960's ?

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

The Celtics hurt their long term future by making the trade a few years ago for KG and Ray Allen for immediate success. They were in the finals 2 of 3 years & got one championship. It's arguable if it was the trade was a "success" or not. Rondo has potential to be a HOFer.

The short version is that the Celtics didn't have a guy that could create their own shot in the last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter whereas the Lakers did (in Kobe).

I actually am a huge basketball fan, so I really enjoyed the series even though it wasn't pretty at times.

Your second point is right on the money, IMO

Your first point...

When I first found out that the T-Wolves traded KG for a bag of magic beans I was upset to say the least.

I knew before the season started that the Celtics were a Finals "shoe in" the way they stacked the deck.

How could you not trade a draft pick for a future HOFer with some prime left in him? How many draft picks will be future HOFers?