2010 NBA Finals: Exploring Implications of a Lakers Purple and Fold in Game 6

I spent the period between the end of the NBA Conference Finals and the beginning of the Finals degrading anyone who thought the 2010 Finals would have any semblance of similarity to the 2008 Finals.

In fact, degrading might be too nice of a word. I thought it was completely idiotic—so much so, that I wrote an article scoffing at the notion.

There were, in my mind, only two similarities: The team names involved, and their star players.

While the latter similarity weighs heavily under normal circumstances, I felt it was null-and-void because of the thrown-togetherness of the Boston Celtics and Los Angeles Lakers in 2008.

No team can fully gel in less than a season of playing together, so I figured it was safe to assume that we were in store for a completely different series, and that the games would be of a higher quality.

Well, we all know what happens when you assume.

Despite competitiveness on the court being ratcheted up to a level we haven't seen in over a decade, officiating has marred a series that had potential to reach all-time elite status. (To date, officials have called 248 personal fouls in the first five games of the Finals, or an average of 49.6 fouls per game—a massive increase over regular season and playoff rates).

However, I am a believer that players win or lose games, not officials. Well, unless it's Game Six of the 2002 Western Conference Finals, or Games Three through Six of the 2006 Finals. But that's another story.

Yet despite the venues and results of the individual games being different, here we are again.

Just like in the 2008 Finals—a series that I thought would have no bearing on the 2010 Finals—the Celtics are on the precipice of beating the Lakers in six games.

I know I cannot be the only person experiencing déjà vu.

Exactly like 2008, Boston is playing with more desire, more toughness, and just plain better. Boston's fans are better. Boston's bench is better. And you could even argue that their coaching is better. 

There is really only one question that remains: Will the Lakers give up in embarrassing fashion the same way they did in 2008, or will the team fight on its home-court and win the series?

If these Finals continue the pattern of mirroring 2008, then the implications for the Lakers could be mind-numbing. 

Don't believe me? Let's explore them.

Implication One: Phil Jackson could leave the Lakers

While almost all of the league's current coaching vacancies have been filled, there is still one out there that I find an interesting fit for Phil: the Los Angeles Clippers.

When you're done laughing, hear me out. Jackson could continue living his L.A. lifestyle, have complete control over all basketball operations, coach a great under-25 nucleus, and be the star of the franchise.

Doesn't sound like too bad of a gig now, does it?

Then you remember that Donald Sterling is the Clippers' owner, and that whole scenario is shot to hell.

Honestly, the only way I see Jackson leaving is if he back-doors Mike D'Antoni, and takes the New York Knicks job. Which, if you believe the rumblings of discontent coming out of New York, might not be so unlikely.

And if Jackson does leave, another gigantic question looms: Who replaces him?

Implication Two: Kobe Bryant's legacy would be permanently scarred

Hold your hate mail, Kobe lovers. I'm not saying Bryant is a terrible player, worse than LeBron James, or anything else ridiculous.

I am, however, saying that the argument for Bryant as a top-five player in NBA history would officially die, along with the Lakers' 2010 season. (He would be seventh on my list with a Finals loss, but fifth with a win).

Demise would also come to the argument that Bryant someday could be on the same plateau as Michael Jordan, or that he could supplant Magic Johnson as the greatest Laker ever.

How can I say this with certainty when the Lakers' current nucleus has another two- to three-year window to win championships?

Because, while L.A.'s window will remain open for the next few seasons, Boston's window closes the moment the 2010 season ends.

With Kevin Garnett performing at roughly 30 percent of his former self, Ray Allen already positioned to become the hottest mid-level exception free agent in the 2010 free agency bonanza, and Rajon Rondo showing himself as not quite being ready to become the alpha dog, it is only logical to assume that this current Celtics nucleus' window slams shut after this season.

And, to me, Bryant cannot eclipse Magic on the Lakers Mount Rushmore without beating the Celtics in the Finals.

Implication Three: The Lakers' 2009 NBA championship will become tainted to some

Personally, I feel there are no "tainted" championships. However, I don't speak for the masses. In the ever-increasing asterisk era, fans are more willing than ever to take away rightfully gained credit.

In addition, the massive sect of Laker-haters across the nation will be quick to point out that the Celtics have never lost a playoff series when the "Big Three" are on the court together, and the Lakers' 2009 championship run was when Garnett was injured.

Well, to be bluntly honest, these people are morons. So let's move on.

Implication Four: The Celtics franchise officially retakes the throne as the NBA's greatest franchise

For the first six years of its existence, the NBA belonged to the Lakers with the then-Minneapolis Lakers winning three of the first six NBA championships.

Then came Bill Russell.

Beginning in 1957, the Celtics reign over the NBA spanned 38 years and 15 championships until 1985, when the Lakers finally exorcised their Celtic demons.

Since 1985, there have been various dynasties (although no team ever won more than three consecutive titles), but when anyone asked what the greatest NBA franchise was, there were two answers: the Boston Celtics, or Los Angeles Lakers.

Lakers proponents argued that their team has never had an extended period of mediocrity, while the Celtics spent most of the 1990s and early 2000s, toiling away.

Celtics proponents argue for their team's record against Los Angeles in the Finals, as well as their 17-3 record overall in the Finals.

No matter which side your affiliation lies, mentioning your disagreement on the matter is a bar-room brawl waiting to happen.

However, if the Celtics win, I feel there isn't much of a debate left: Boston would have a 18-15 lead in NBA championships over the Lakers, a 9-2 record against the Lakers in Finals match-ups, and a period of dominance during the 1960s that will never be matched again.

If the Lakers comeback and win the 2010 Finals, the debate lives on.

Either way, it all begins (or ends) with Game Six tomorrow night.