The 2010 Finals are not your average, run-of-the-mill series. This is Celtics-Lakers, one of the greatest rivalries in all of sports. On one side, you have a veteran team, deemed by many (including yours truly) to be too old and out of sync to make a legitimate run in the playoffs. A team whose window had effectively been shut by Game 1 of the first round. A team whose fanbase was frustrated, angry, upset, and appalled at the lack of tenacity shown in the second half of the season, pissed off at the notion that another few years of mediocre players was on the horizon. Their unexpected run to the Finals has virtually put those thoughts to rest, at least for the time being. On the other side, you have the hated Lakers. A team that has been more successful (and lucky) since the late 1980s than the Celtics. A team that has rarely had a down year in its entire history with a player that exemplifies arrogance and gets all the calls. (Literally. Exhibit A: Game 1.) Really, these teams are playing for more than just another trophy and banner to raise to the rafters. These Finals have a whole legacy--for both the marquee players and teams overall--inextricably tied to them.
If the Lakers win the 2010 NBA Finals, the Celtics core that was formed in 2008 will be all but a drop in the proverbial bucket of the history of the game. Does anyone really remember that the Warriors won the Finals one time in 1975? Or how about the Bucks in 1971? No one except the most die-hard of fans. One championship means nothing in the long run. If 2008 is the only banner the Celtics raise in a long while, they won't be forgotten entirely (the Celtics franchise is too storied to forget about any championship), but 30 years from now, 2008 will probably be an afterthought. Speaking personally, when I think of the Celtics, I automatically think of the 1960s and 1980s. 1974 and '76 are just kinda thrown in there for me--considering our past runs, not as special at all. And that's 2 titles in 3 years. If the Lakers end up winning this year, 2008 becomes less special for the fanbase as a whole. Now, for me and many fans of my generation, 2008 will obviously hold a lot of sentiment considering it was the first title of my lifetime. My point is that in the big scheme of NBA and Celtic history, it would be almost insignificant.
If the Lakers win, add the above to the fact that our "mini-dynasty" would be halted by our hated (and I mean HATED) rivals and it's adding salt to the wound. Not only that, but the Lakers would win back-to-back titles and would kill any "The Celtics OWN Kobe!" arguments. Can you imagine this? Take a second. The Lakers win the 2010 NBA Finals. ESPN goes nuts for the next several weeks, with random analysts who would claim they "knew all along" that the Lakers had the Celtics number from the get-go. SportsCenter would constantly remind us that, sure, the Celtics obliterated the Lakers in the 1960s and got 'em again in 1981. But they'd pull out 1985, '87, and now 2010 and make the case that the tables have turned. Not to mention we'd have to hear talk of Kobe Bryant being MVP of Forever, becoming the best Laker of all-time, and of course the unceasing Better-than-Jordan arguments. Ugh, shut up ahead of time! Jordan was always A-number-1 and consistently made his teammates better. Kobe, on the other hand, was overshadowed by Shaq and only won in 2009 because he went against a Magic team in which Hedo Turkoglu guarded him and Dwight Howard was even more inconsistent than he was this year. Can't you just picture ESPN showing Kobe holding that damn trophy counting in slow motion and mouthing, "One, two, three, fo', five!" Fucking pisses me off. I simply cannot hear talk of him being "one of the best ever" and "in the conversation of being like Mike." I just can't. You know in interviews or even just when a camera shows Bryant alone just sitting there? He's got that freakin' look on his face that just screams, "Yeah, I know I'm the shit. LeBron's got nothing on me. Look where I've taken my team. Look how loyal of a Laker I am. I've earned the right to show up my coach and fellow teammates in order to get my own." It's that stoic face, that nothin'-but-business look. And he'll be even more of an entitled douchebag if they get it this year.
If the Lakers win, Phil Jackson will be almost universally cemented as the greatest coach ever. "Yay! 11 rings on teams that were already constructed and that I barely had to coach because I had 2 of the most arrogant players ever on my roster who wouldn't listen to me anyway, so I'd say things like, 'Love is the force that ignites the spirit and binds teams together' and 'Wisdom is always an overmatch for strength.' Um, what? Are you talking about basketball or writing a freaking holy book? Look, what it comes down to in the Best Coach Ever argument is what the coaches themselves actually did. I honestly believe that if I coached the Chicago Bulls in 1989-90 as Jackson did (ALREADY WITH JORDAN AND ROLE PLAYERS WAITING), I could have won a title. For all intents and purposes, Jackson has done NOTHING but provide "deep" one-liners that "motivated" his teams. You wanna talk best coaches of all time? How about Red Auerbach? 9 Championships, retired in his "prime," and, most important, BUILT the great Celtic teams (including into the Bird era). Sure, it was a different game back then (whatever that really means--the talent pool was as great if not better and fewer teams=more competition), but Red acted as head coach, player scout, had an ultimate understanding of The Secret, and drafted players from the 1960s on. Two major picks he made: Bill Russell and Larry Bird. We all know the story by now, but it's worth repeating if just to silence the Phil Jackson Kool-Aid drinkers. Short version: Red expertly convinced the St. Louis Hawks, who had the 2nd pick in the 1956 draft, to trade Russell to Boston for a couple players and the opportunity to host the Ice Capades in their arena (oh, how times have changed). Of course, the owner bought into it, and the rest is history. In 1978, Red saw Larry Bird's potential and drafted him A YEAR EARLY! There has since been a rule change that only players who are eligible (i.e. have graduated and/or declared themselves eligible for the draft) can in fact be drafted. The Larry Bird Rule. Anyway, the point I'm desperately trying to make is that Red had an eye for talent that has never since been duplicated. Jackson CERTAINLY has no eye for talent, considering he plays no role in who gets drafted for the teams he coaches. You could say that's more of a product of the times, as the GM holds more sway over things and whatnot, but if you ask me and any real fan of the game, you know that Red was the consummate coach in every way--he never had anything done for him, but he always had to go do it himself. He and he alone constructed the Celtic dynasty and he and he alone should be given the most credit for evoking the memories that everyone thinks of when they think of "Celtics."
If the Lakers win, things will eventually get back to normal. The anger we as fans feel toward our teams when they lose a chance to be the best team in the world eventually fades. It's actually true of anger in general. You may lose a video game and become enraged to the point where you want to rip your controller in half and throw the pieces through the TV. We've all been there. But you get your cool back after a few minutes and think, "I'm glad I didn't destroy my TV. That would have been foolish." You get in a fight with a friend, a parent, whoever. You may stay angry for a few hours, a few days at most. But eventually things get back to normal (Unless it's really bad...like your friend killed someone or had sex with your girlfriend. That would be the end of that friendship.) But you get what I'm saying. We'll move on, root for the Red Sox and the Pats when their season gets going, we'll find things to occupy our time. But if the Lakers win this time, it lasts forever in the sense that all of the previous paragraphs will happen. It will always "haunt" Celtics fans, especially considering this is the last run for the current core. It will always be in the back of our heads and it will always suck.
I don't really know how to end this...I just wanted to get my point across that more is at stake in this series than just a banner. KG, Pierce, and Allen's window will be closed. (That is in terms of winning rings. I fully believe that Pierce and Allen have more miles in them and KG, too, to a lesser extent. Although that botched layup in Game 1 was brutal and showed he's just getting too old and tired. Who knows with him.) In terms of Celtic greats, Pierce will surely rank up there, but with one ring on his finger, it certainly doesn't mean nearly as much as two rings would. He's already a Hall of Famer and a Top 10 Celtic in my mind (those ahead of him off the top of my head, not looking at stats, and in no particular order: Russell, Cousy, Bird, McHale, Parish, Havlicek, Sam Jones, Cowens, and maybe Heinsohn and KC Jones). But, to borrow a word from Simmons, Pierce just simply isn't in the Pantheon of great Celtics. If he wins a second title? I honestly don't know. But I do know that this year is the last year for him and the rest of the Big Three, at least on the Celtics. That day is inevitable, and it will be a sad one. I just hope, hope, hope that it doesn't end with the Lakers celebrating and creeping tenuously close to the Celtics with 16 Championships and counting. What better way for it to end than the so-called ride off into the sunset, giving fans one more period of happiness and pride before The Fall? Unless we get tremendously lucky as we did with NOT getting the #1 pick in 2007, the Celtics are destined for mediocrity (Rondo's great and Perkins still has potential, but they are not able to carry a team themselves). Based on the 20+ years prior to 2008, let's just hope it doesn't come to that.
If the Lakers win...
With the way the Celtics have surprised us this postseason, you gotta believe that's a huge if.
No comments:
Post a Comment