Board 8 > NBA discussion topic

(+) Yeah! (+)

we probably need one at this point, yeah?

how would you rank the clear top 6 teams?

1. Golden State (Curry, Thompson, Iguodala, Durant, Green)

Boston (Smart, Irving, Tatum, Hayward, Horford)
Cleveland (Smith, Wade, James, Love, Thompson)
Houston (Paul, Harden, Anderson, Nene, Capela)
Oklahoma City (Westbrook, Roberson, George, Anthony, Adams)
San Antonio (Parker, Mills, Leonard, Aldridge, P. Gasol)

and which teams from the next pack intrigue you (as in, enough to compete with the top six)?

Denver (Nelson, Murray, Millsap, Jokic, W. Chandler)
Milwaukee (Dellavadova, Middleton, Antetokounmpo. Parker, Monroe)
Minnesota (Teague, Butler, Wiggins, Gibson, Towns)
LA Clippers (Beverley, Rivers, Gallinari, Griffin, D. Jordan)
Philadelphia (Fultz, Redick, Simmons, Okafor, Embiid)
Toronto (Lowry, Derozan, Miles, Valancianas, Ibaka)
Washington (Wall, Beal, Porter, Mahimni, Gortat)
---

1. GSW
2. CLE
3. OKC
4. SAS
5. HOU
6. BOS

the 2nd/3rd seed matchup in the west should be incredible. i'd expect SAS to have home court over OKC in that series, but that's getting ahead of ourselves, i guess

pretty much by definition, TOR and WAS are the two least interesting teams in that list. they might be competitive with boston, but they're not interesting

don't watch enough western conference ball to know about that side of the bracket, but denver has historically underachieved come playoff time and i don't really see that changing just by acquiring killsap

portland i'd probably expect to be in the mix or better than some of those west teams, right?
---

I think Denver is the clear #7. Jokic is a monster that is going to be a household name by Christmas, I think, and Millsap will work real well with him. they're going to miss Gallinari though. I wish they had more shooting and a SG that was worth something.

I wouldn't put Portland in that group. McCollum and Lillard are fine but they're not any better than they were last year and feel outclassed by the elite teams in the west. maybe they grab the 7 or 8 but I don't think they have a chance at being great.
---

yeah, i don't see portland as having a chance at 'greatness.' they're better players but i kinda see CJ/dame as the monta/steph of this era
---

Any chance the davies/cousins combo flourishes after an offseason together?
---

as a kings fan I have zero expectations for the Pelicans to be any kind of good
---

trust the process
---

I think I'm going to follow more this year.

If I had to guess on a top 6

1. GS
2. HOU
3. CLE
4. SAS
5. OKC
6. BOS

Outside of that 6, I think the best team in the East is Washington though I think Milwaukee has the most potential to grow. West is definitely interesting though. Denver and Minnesota seem the best on paper but whether that translates to actual success is another story.
---

milwaukee has had the best chance to grow for half a decade now

new orleans does have AD, who could be an equalizer. can't wait to see him on the celtics.
---

Hoping the T'Wolves break through. Amazing lineup, they just need to function now.
---

I think that just shows more about the state of the East.

Philly has a chance too! If they can stay healthy
---

on paper I think Minnesota looks amazing. I don't know though.. if they went like 33-49 I wouldn't be at all surprised. they need to play as a team and guard. I would try to move Wiggins for a good role player, I think.

I don't think Denver looks all that good on paper but I believe.
---

1. GSW
2. HOU
3. BOS
4. OKC
5. CLE
6. SAS

when IT4 comes back, move Cavs to #2 or 3
---

Minnesota and Philly have to show me what they got. Philly just feels like it's got too many injury prone guys that aren't really at the speed they should be. I don't know about the culture of the organization. Still, it's gotta be fun to be a Philly fan because you got all this young potential. Washington and Toronto are teams that more or less already know their limits and have seen their ceilings. Basically, hope Lebron gets hurt and Boston falls of the edge of the earth.
---

I think the Clippers are gonna be better than people realize. if Griffin is healthy, anyway.
---

Denver is gonna be dependent on if Jokic takes a leap play wise. I think he does. They also have a surprising amount of depth. They just need to move Faried.

Clippers are gonna make the playoffs but I don't see them threatening any of the top 4 West teams. Maybe I just value CP3 highly? I do like Beverley and Gallinari though
---

no team is super likely to threaten a top-4 west team imo. if a first round matchup is competitive it'll be seen more as disappointment from the favored team now than as a success fron one of the lower teams, i think. there's a chance that the thunder go the way of the 2013 lakers but that's a falloff rather than a credit to LAC or whoever
---

transcience posted...

if Griffin is healthy

there's your problem
---

1. Warriors
2. Cleveland
3. Spurs
4. Rockets
5. Thunder
6. Celtics

Spurs are 3rd because I hate to count them out no matter what they do. Rockets and Thunder both made moves Rockets beat them in the playoffs so I put them ahead for now. And I just don't think Kyrie in Boston is going to work out.

None of the 2nd tier west teams have a shot at getting past the big four unless the young t-wolves make a lot of strides this year. On the East I think the Bucks could surprise people and meet the Cavs in the east finals depending on seeding. Giannis is too good and my dark horse for MVP. Too many variables in the East now to see how its going to shake out other than lolLebron.
---

neonreaper posted...

6. SAS

what

oh hey lottery reform and resting healthy player regulations incoming

this will be 'fun'
---

Lottery reform doesn't seem bad to me
---

I don't see it with the Spurs oh well
---

yeah of course Griffin is a red flag. I could argue the same for Cleveland though.

I'm not that high on the Spurs. they feel more like a one person team than ever before. I'm also not that high on Houston? I might go OKC for #2 just because I don't totally believe in the others.
---

Everyone sleeping on the Lakers?

All according to keikaku.
---

I dunno what to think of the Spurs this year. They'll win 50+ games like they always do, but I don't know what their ceiling is.
---

The lottery reform is fucking garbage and will just encourage more tanking.
---

Spurs will be fine

There's the whole unhappy LMA story but as long as Pop exists they'll be competitive
---

those lottery regulations don't really seem to address the problem either way. I personally don't think you can fix the problem because it revolves around how valuable star players are in the NBA. as long as that is true, teams will tank.
---

transcience posted...

those lottery regulations don't really seem to address the problem either way. I personally don't think you can fix the problem because it revolves around how valuable star players are in the NBA. as long as that is true, teams will tank.

Team 7's odds of drafting #1 are better than half as good as the worst team's.

Teams sitting in the 4-5-6 range now have greater incentive to tank down to 3rd because it's the same odds at finishing with the worst record. There's also a significant difference in chances at a top 5 pick between 3 and 6 (67% vs. 37%).

This is so stupid.
---

it's not that different to how it is now. we probably won't see as many 11-71 records at least? teams will tank either way.
---

transcience posted...

it's not that different to how it is now. we probably won't see as many 11-71 records at least? teams will tank either way.

The old system was awful, too, they're just making it worse.
---

Looking at the new odds breakdown.

The number 1 pick has a 48% chance of drafting 5th.

48%.

Holy shit this is bad.
---

what exactly do you want?
---

No lottery system.

Teams that finish only a handful of games out of the playoffs and then moving into the top 3 is a garbage system that basically ensures bad teams that need help constantly getting pushed out of top positions.

The Washington Wizards and Detroit Pistons finished with the exact same record in 2010.

The Wizards got the first pick via the draft lottery and selected John Wall.
The Pistons got the 7th pick via the draft lottery and selected Greg Monroe (and would have ended up with Epke Udoh had it not been for GSW losing their minds at 6).

Explain to me how that makes any sense?
---

I think you've got it backwards, personally. if you gave the team with the worst record a 100% chance of getting the first pick then you're encouraging tanking even more than the lottery system. the lottery is meant to discourage tanking by adding a random factor to the whole thing. you can argue about its effectiveness, but just giving Philadelphia the top pick every year for five years wouldn't have really helped things. (that's kinda what happened, but you know what I mean.)
---

It's not about the worst teams being the worst. They will be the worst no matter what cause they're rebuilding teams playing a combination of young players, D-League signing and minimum level contracts spattered in with probably overpaid, underperforming players. Hell, the Sixers "Process" hasn't produced a single dividend yet.

It's about the bottom third getting more incentive to move down. If you were the 5th worst team last year, your decision to tank or not was based on increasing odds at landing Fultz, Ball, Tatum, or Jackson. There's every incentive to lose games late to increase those odds. Under a non-lottery system, the 5th worst team is looking at a draft board driven decision. Do we need to move down from 5 to 4 to select Josh Jackson instead of D'Aaron Fox? There's easily less incentive to tank because you know you have absolutely no shot at Fultz, Ball, or Tatum (and I'm just using this example in the order they were actually drafted because I believe most big boards had Jackson over Tatum).

The point is that the Sixers wouldn't feel the need to suck for 5 years if there was no draft lottery because they would likely have followed a more natural rebuilding process where they land the #1 pick one year, then maybe a top 3 pick the next, then if they're not busts and with the proper signings probably moving outside the top 5 (maybe outside the top 10) and so on and so forth. The reason the Sixers took the approach they did is because of how often they missed out on the pick they were actually at and had to draft back until the past few seasons when they lucked out in one lottery and traded up in another.

I'm not saying it will stop tanking, nothing will. But a system that actively encourages the more bad but not completely awful teams to lose games is not gonna fix tanking, it's gonna make it worse. That's why the league is in such awful shape in terms of parity. You tell teams they're not allowed to get top draft picks automatically, so you lose out on talent there. You're not gonna sign top free agents, they generally pass on going to teams that bad, so you lose out on talent there. You'd like to make trades, but you have less assets to work with because you're losing out on talent in the draft and the free agent market. You're often forced to overpay for average to above average players just to convince them to come to your team.

And don't get me wrong, there's bad GMs out there that are failing in all aspects of building a team, but that's no excuse to encourage a system that pushes bad teams to make bad moves for the sake of fielding a slightly less bad team.
---

I mean if you really want to hit teams for tanking, hit them in the wallet. Tie revenue sharing to their team's record.
---

yeah, I don't really agree. the real problem is teams that sell off their present with the hope of getting a star in the future. why would the sixers tank for a 25% chance at a pick when they could tank and have a 100% chance? or if some team is the seventh worst and want to get to third, why not if you have no shot at the playoffs? I'd rather have Tatum than, uh, Frankie whoever that the Knicks drafted.
---

tbh, i have no issue with the pre-existing lotto system

it's fun to root for teams to tank

the reason why the league's parity is awful is because of free agency and the importance of superstars, and the fact that some front offices are vastly more skilled than others
---

Yeah it's definitely free agency and the fact that larger markets/major playoff contenders have such a huge advantage over others simply because they can attract free agents

Even a top 3 pick in the lottery isn't a complete lock to get a superstar. Stephen Curry was a 7th IIRC.
---

I don't think it's a big market/small market thing as much anymore. Carmelo just willingly got traded from New York to OKC. players seem to be flocking to situations as much or more as big cities.
---

I pretty much agree with rock.

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the new Thunder acquisitions?
---

compared to what they gave up? probably
---

MajinZidane posted...

Am I the only one who isn't a fan of the new Thunder acquisitions?

i am also not, because paul george belongs on the celtics
---

compared to what they gave up, yeah, and I don't think the players will be that great together
---

that's very possible

the thunder's advantage is that westbrook and george are in their primes

their weakness is that both george and melo are approaching free agency
---

it's a one year power play to try to keep Russ. without the moves they probably just have the worst team in the league next year. with it, maybe the same! but I like that they went for it.
---

Doesn't Melo have three years left on his deal?
---