Ah, here we are, a few days away from the matchup that most of us wanted to see: Celtics vs. Lakers. Not since the 2004 Finals when the Pistons upset the Lakers have we had a Finals matchup that even approached the history of the once-vaunted rivalry between the Lakers and the Celtics.
This will be the 11th time that the two teams have met in the Finals, with the Celtics holding an 8-2 lead (but the Lakers have won the last two). The rivalry started in 1959 when Bob Cousy, Bill Russell and the rest of the Celtics swept Elgin Baylor’s Minneapolis Lakers, starting an unmatched run of eight straight titles and 10 championships in 11 years. Seven of those 10 Boston titles were against the Lakers.
The teams wouldn’t meet again until 15 years later, in 1984 when Larry Bird’s Celtics beat Magic Johnson’s Lakers. The two teams would meet in two of the next three Finals, and the Lakers finally got over the Celtic hump, winning those two matchups in 1985 and 1987.
Not that the 2008 Finals needs this much history to be compelling. There are several big questions that need to be answered. Will Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen break through and win a title after 35 combined years in the league without a single Finals appearance? Will Kobe finally win a title without Shaq, and establish himself as a player that deserves to be compared to Michael Jordan? Will Phil Jackson win his 10th title, breaking the record of the Celtics’ legend Red Auerbach, who once said that Jackson was a “good coach,” but that he “picks his spots” and has “been very fortunate”?
The Phil Jackson and “Big Three” storylines are nice, but this Finals is all about Kobe Bryant. Thus far, it has been his year. Last summer, he demanded a trade, criticizing Mitch Kupchak for not pulling the trigger on a move that would have brought Jason Kidd to L.A., saying that it was a no-brainer since all they had to give up was Andrew Bynum. Then, he was seemingly detached for much of November, still quietly pushing for a trade. It was only after a 10-4 December that gave the Lakers a 19-11 record (and Bynum averaged a near double-double, emerging as one of the best young big men in the game), did Kobe fully invest himself in the 2007-08 Lakers.
Even Bynum’s season-ending injury couldn’t derail the Lakers, not after Memphis GM Chris Wallace’s decision to trade Pau Gasol – another of the league’s best young centers – to the Lakers for Javaris Crittenton and a bag of peanuts. Or the more overlooked acquisition of Derek Fisher who was so generously let out of his contract in Utah so that he could live in a city where his daughter could have better medical attention.
Now I’m hearing commentary about how Kobe deserves credit for the Laker turnaround because his critical words were what pushed Kupchak to make the team better.
Please. Kobe was wrong. He was wrong about Bynum, he was wrong about Kidd, he was wrong about Kupchak, but most importantly, he was wrong about airing his grievances through the media the way he did. And I actually defended him when he first demanded to be traded. (Keep in mind that I defended the trade demand, not the way he demanded it.)
You’d think that a guy that was wrong on so many points might show some sign of regret or remorse. Not Kobe. He repeatedly implies that it was his temper tantrum that motivated Bynum to be a great player and that he pushed Kupchak to make the team better.
Right, like Bynum wasn’t already halfway through his demanding summer workout program (and already on track for a breakout season) or that any GM in the country (with an owner willing to spend) wouldn’t have agreed to trade for a seven-foot, borderline All-Star if all they had to give up was an unproven rookie, a backup center and a late first round draft pick. To be fair, Kupchak blew the Caron Butler for Kwame Brown trade, but he has drafted very well in his tenure, garnering most of the players that make up the Lakers’ dangerous bench.
For a while there, I was hoping Chris Paul would win the MVP so that Kobe wouldn’t be rewarded for his actions last summer. I’m not sure what kind of message that sends to the rest of the league. Hey, it’s okay to throw your teammates under the bus – we’ll still give you the MVP.
Now I’m rooting against Kobe and the Lakers, hoping that his legacy-defining, Shaq-less title will have to wait at least a year. But I don’t know if the Celtics – even with home court advantage – have the juice to pull it off. They aren’t well-coached, the vaunted ubuntu chemistry is shaky, and they don’t have the best player in the series. I’d love to see Garnett win a title, especially considering all of the trials and tribulations he went through in Minnesota, but I wonder if his immense intensity will work against him. It’s tough to play at a very high level when you are wound that tight, and he is standing at a monumental precipice that represents his entire career. Do you think he’s going to be playing loose in crunch time?
The best defense in the league (Boston) will try to slow down the best offense in the league (L.A.), but the difference might be on the other end of the court. The Lakers are an underrated defensive team and the Celtics have a tendency to go through offensive droughts because they shoot so many jumpers. And both teams have several young players in their rotations; who will play above their head and who will lie quietly in the corner in the fetal position?
One thing’s for sure – the Lakers have the coaching advantage. I don’t think anyone not related to Doc Rivers is going to say that he’s a better coach than Jackson. In a seven-game series, adjustments are so important, and Jackson has a much better track record.
Ultimately, this is going to come down to Kobe. If he plays well, the Lakers will triumph. If he doesn’t, Boston has a chance to win a few games and make the series competitive. As much as I’d love the sweet justice of Bynum becoming the guy responsible for putting the Lakers over the top, it looks like that role will be played by Pau Gasol.
Unfortunately, it’s Kobe’s year.
