Still an *?

Many people claim that the 1999 Spurs championship had an asterisk next to it because of the lockout season. No offense to any Spurs fans, but will this one (when they beat the Nets) still have an asterisk as well?

TNT commentator Mike Fratello referred to the Mavericks as a "crippled team" after the game. They lost their star player, Dirk Nowitzki to a terrible injury two games before this. Therefore, San Antonio beat a tampered down version of the Mavericks.

If San Antonio can capture a title this year, will the critics be able to overlook this fact? Or will this generation of Spurs be always remembered as the * era?

Your thoughts?

No, the better team has been winning. The spurs beat their opponents (even us) and the better team has won. The Spurs will go on to the finals, you can't put an (*) on it this year...

Right?

maybe so. personally, I'm not saying that the Spurs only won because of Dirk being injured (although it may have been a factor). I'm just curious if others will react that way toward them.

I agree with LD2k. The spurs are the best team this year, injuries are part of the game. In two years no one will remember that the Spurs won because of injuries or not. So no * for me on this one, they deserve it (they still have to win against NJ...).

YeYES YES YES yES there is an * on this season. The Lakers lost Fox and (for all intents and purposes) George, The Mavs lost Dirk and the Kings (who WOULD HAVE beaten the mavs AND the spurs if healthy) lost Webber AND (only for s short period, but still he is the sixth man) B-Jax. Injuries may be part of the game, but when the two best players on the two best teams in the league go down and the team that was in their way benefits, there is a large wondering that happens...If Webber had been healthy, would Sacto be in the finals? If Fox had been healthy (and George) would WE be in the finals? One can only wonder. I do, however, give San Antonio credit for playing as well as any team and for capitalizing on other's misfortunes. For me, this is yet another * to put with the other one...

But injuries are very much part of the game. Having a full healthy squad at the end of the season is key to making a run for the title. I say let them have it this year, but "99" stays the * year!!

If the Spurs somehow lose to the Nets, then the * stays where it has been! If they win it all, the * should be taken away. They've been winning, and takin eri-1 in 6 games, and the best team wins a 7 game series, it's as simple as that. With longevity comes injuries and players are prone to injuries, it's a part of the game.

In my opinion there is no way the Spurs deserve being in the finals. They did not earn a single series that they won and would not have won if each of the teams that they played were healthy. Kings-Webber was injured and so was Bobby Jackson; Lakers-Fox was out, George was playing injured with his bad ankle, Shaq was having knee problems, Kobe's shoulder was never fully healed; Mavs-Dirk was injured. Had any of these teams not had their best player being injured or playing hurt and been as healthy as the Spurs were they would not have made it past the Kings. So if the Spurs will the championship, it will be another one that they did not earn or deserve just like in 99, and they will not be seen as true champions, and will gain another asterisk. If my addition serves me correctly that’s 2 *, one by each championship. I think they are going for some kind of record or something.

But injuries are a part of the game, and teams should learn to not depend on the players that happen to get injured.

Fact is that they still beat us. And from that point alone if they beat the Nets, then it is a definite, well earned championship.

The only reason that there could be an asterisk in it, is due to the Chris Webber injury. If Webber was healthy, the Kings would have destroyed the Mavs, and killed the Spurs. It is hard for me to admit it, but with a healthy Webber, the Kings are the best team in the league, not the Spurs.

Teams have to depend on players. Teams have to depend on their superstars unless they have an extremely deep team, which isn't all that common. Are you saying the Lakers can't depend on Shaq, Kings can't depend on Webber, Mavs can't depend on Dirk, Spurs can't depend Duncan, Magic can't depend on T-Mac, Timberwolves can't depend on KG. Thats what they are there for to carry the team, to carry the load, team are built around there type players. Teams plan offensive and defensive plans just for and against just one of these players yet you say their team can't depend on them. I realize injuries are a part of a game that every team needs to prepare for, but most teams don't. And if it's a superstar that goes down it's going to change the outcome of a game. Thus every playoff series the Spurs played. So how do they deserve to be where they are at, and how have they earned this it has practically been given to them. They didn't play one series where a superstar on the other team wasn't hurt. Marbury, Webber, Lakers, Dirk. That comment you made is hard for me to comprehend, if you would like to clearify it for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes I agree. All teh series teh Spurs have played it has been healthy vs unhealthy, and of course common sense tells ya healthy wins. If It weren't for Webber's injury the Kings would have conquered teh Mavericks, If Dirk wasn't injured, the Mavs had a shot at winning the East, If Fox was with us, his sharp defense plus rob's game 5 trey, we woulda been in the finals now, But injuries are part of the game, and sadly, every series the spurs have been healthy and the other teams have lost players with significant roles on that team. Reality is if SA goes on to win it all, that's it. But note to all other teams, through our 3 peat in the playoffs, no superstar has gone down meaning our championships were all earned 200%, but the spurs received help from god, cuzz each series, an important player, mostly the superstars or leaders were injured, while the spurs were all healthy and rob's 3 rattled in and out.......

The Spurs have done their part fair and square, but they HAVE had an unusually strange string of injuries that have affected their opposition, and that can't be overlooked, even if it isn't ultimately the reason they won the west...

You can't overlook it, but at the same time is it really fair to put an * on it?

Even if SA still happens to win it this year, their 99 season will still have an * on it. It wasn't a full season of play.

BY FAR THIS SEASON NEEDS AN ASTERIC, EVERY FREAKING TEAM THEY PLAYED HAD A MAJOR INJURY.............

marbury was injured, his arm, and he is the superstar of that team

our beloved FOXY, IF HE was there, bowen would have never got an open look, that [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.]

and dirk, mavs superstars

spurs are a joke and cant win for [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.], burn san [Swearing is not permitted at Clublakers. You must edit this post prior to submitting.] burn

jsm0331 wrote:In my opinion there is no way the Spurs deserve being in the finals. They did not earn a single series that they won and would not have won if each of the teams that they played were healthy.

I don't understand.

All the tiltles Agassi won when Sampras was injured should have an asterix? Should our 3peat have an asterix? Stoja was injured against the Lakers, wasn't he? Should we say as well that if you win a PGA tour but Tiger is not playing then an asterix should be added?

The Lakers had a couple of injuries, but the way they manage this season I think it is no surprise. The Spurs this year were better than us, with or without Rob 3pointer in game 5, with or without Fox. I don't like the fact we lose this year but I don't like even more when we try to find excuses and depreciate what the other teams did. SA took Parker at the end of the first round, they brought Ginobilli, they kept Rose...they have done an incredible job of bringing youth, athletism and bench (exactly where we didn't succeed) and moreover they are now well under the SC. If you want to put an asterix, put it. But I don't understand.

This is just ridiculous

Open your eyes, SA was too strong and LA has sucked !!!!
Seriously, do you think that LA with Fox and George healthy could have win ? No way.

I love Lakers but if Spurs win it this year, they deserve it as much as LA these past three years.

well ya nevah know unless he was there. Fox has sharp defense and can hit a couple of clutch treys in the fourth quarter, and bout defense he never leaves his man......so he just hadta be there to see

aside from that, all the teams the spurs played in teh playofs had a SUPERSTAR injured: marbury, actualyl stood a good chance, and if nowintzi was not injured, mavs also could have beeten the spurs........

Reddy wrote:well ya nevah know unless he was there. Fox has sharp defense and can hit a couple of clutch treys in the fourth quarter, and bout defense he never leaves his man......so he just hadta be there to see

aside from that, all the teams the spurs played in teh playofs had a SUPERSTAR injured: marbury, actualyl stood a good chance, and if nowintzi was not injured, mavs also could have beeten the spurs........

With "if" and "could" Lakers would have been champs for 10 years !

If you think so then you can put an asterix as well because Peja was injured last year (or two years ago, not sure ).
Sorry but a team has to deal with injuries. Bigger rotation means as well less injuries and I think Spurs have done a good job in keeping fresh players.

I don't know how Peja can be considered a superstar, I thought their superstar was C-Webb, I guess I was wrong. I agree Spurs were better than the Lakers, injured or otherwise, but they are not better than some of the other teams they beat especially the Mavs.

Injuries are a part of the game, and thats why teams have bench players.

jsm0331 wrote:I don't know how Peja can be considered a superstar, I thought their superstar was C-Webb, I guess I was wrong. I agree Spurs were better than the Lakers, injured or otherwise, but they are not better than some of the other teams they beat especially the Mavs.

I don't know how Fox and Devean can be considered as superstar as well, but since you talked about them in your first post, I guess you know better than us.

Shaqass, before you make a post figure out what is being spoken about. My first post on the subject was not what I was referring to when I was talking about the superstars on a team. Go back and read and then you might understand what I was talking about.

jsm0331 before you become more aggresive, look at my previous post, I was telling that I guessed you knew better than me, you just confirm this right now.

Have you fun here? You know, it's a cool place, you can relax a bit