Los Angeles Lakers: Arguments For and Against Three-Peat in 2011 NBA Finals

LakerFan: Thanks for reading, I bleed gold and purple and I'm going to tell you why LA is destined to lift title No. 17 next summer, and why the Hater is completely off his rocker.

LakerHater: Hello, fellow haters, I, for one, would like to see anybody but LA win next year, but I have plenty of reasons to think the 2010 Lakers' title team will be their last and there will be no dynasty. These are my reasons why.

Lakerfan: Well, first of all, as every Laker fan knows, Phil Jackson has won 11 titles and if he wins again this year it will be his fourth three-peat. Every title he has is part of a trio. He's never won two without winning a third, so that makes the Lakers a lock to win next year.

LakerHater: Well, not exactly. This year, Jackson has advanced to the finals for three straight years for the fourth time in his career. In the past, he won all three. But, this time he made it three straight years (2008, 2009, and 2010) and won two. For this team to three-peat, he'd need to get to the finals FOUR straight years, which Jackson has never done. In fact, the last time a team advanced to the finals four straight years was...oh, the Lakers in 1985.

Lakerfan: Checkmate!

LakerHater: The point is: Phil has never done it and this team and its roster has stayed mostly pat while other teams, like the Thunder and Trailblazers, have gotten better.


Lakerfan: Well, that's not true. The Thunder still have no experience and the Trailblazers are NEVER healthy, so I fail to see how they are a threat. Plus, the Lakers added defensive ace Matt Barnes, center Theo Ratliff, and point guard Steve Blake. I'd hardly call that staying pat.

LakerHater: Matt is a decent defender, but he can't hit the broad side of a Barnes. He averaged five ppg on 37 percent shooting against the Celtics in the playoffs and the Magic management was more than happy t...

About the Author