Printable View
No surprise that the Spurs are his #1 pick but he said his rankings are
is for all these teams are better than last year. He ranks the mid 10 and then the
last 10.....
The Cav's are his 2nd
#3 Clippers
#4 Timberwolfs?
#5 Bulls
#6 Bucks
#7Grizz
#8 N.O.
#9 G.S.
#10 Magic
http://www.nba.com/2015/news/feature...=iref:nbahpt3a
Is this based on offseason moves? No way the TWolves are a top 5 team.
Lmao I will DA a bit, especially since he's always very high on the Spurs, but wolves at 4? :rollin
The criteria are a bit vague from the article, but I gather it's a ranking of who were the biggest benefactors of off-season player movement, including the draft.
For the guys who don't bother to read the article, these aren't rankings.
This is not a ranking of the team themselves, but offseason grades. In other words, who DA believes had the best off seasons.
Makes senseQuote:
Originally Posted by BillMc
What did the Bulls do this offseason? Tbh
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht
Quote:
ADDED: Coach Fred Hoiberg; F Bobby Portis (first round, 22nd pick)
LOST: Coach Tom Thibodeau (fired)
RETAINED: G Aaron Brooks; Jimmy Butler (five years, $92.3 million); F Mike Dunleavy, Jr. (three years, $14.4 million); G Kirk Hinrich (two years, $5.8 million)
THE KEY MAN: Derrick Rose. Duh.
That's a lot of years for Dunleavy, and Hinrich couldn't even give them anything on the court last year. Bobby Portis does look nice though!
Yeah, he must really think the mayor is going to be a great coach. One could make a case that Thibs wrung all he could out of his players.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatYacht
Team is done. Thibs actually tried to rest players last season and they still couldn't stay healthy when it mattered. Noah is walking, no doubt smhQuote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Quote:
The annual rankings of all 30 teams is, again, just taking into account everything that teams have done since they last played a game, factoring in the Draft, free agency and trades.It is not a predicted order of finish for next season; I do not expect the Milwaukee Bucks, for example, to have a better record than the Oklahoma City Thunder, nor do I think the Minnesota Timberwolves now have a better team than the Golden State Warriors. It's relative.
If your team is ranked in the top 10, it doesn't mean I love your team. If your team is ranked in the bottom 10, it doesn't mean I hate your team. It's an opinion that seeks to answer a question: is the team better now than at the end of last season? The ranking reflects the belief on whether, and how much, that is so. (I like certain guys in the Draft more than others, so if your team took them, I probably gave it more weight. Doesn't mean I'm right.)
These rankings are as much art as they are science, weighing the impact both of the Draft and free agency, but also assessing whether teams got value in their free-agent signings. Overpaying the right player is as much a sin as signing the wrong player. New coaches, new GMs, new owners and new arenas are also significant factors in judging a team's summer success. A good coach can coax some more wins out of a roster, and a new building can generate the kind of revenue necessary to let a team be aggressive in pursuing free agents and trades -- if not this season, then in future seasons.
Also, teams that are rebuilding obviously have different priorities than teams making a championship push. That's factored in. But a team like the Cleveland Cavaliers, which had a lot of free agents, and thus a lot to lose, gets credit for keeping that core together (because it's costing owner Dan Gilbert a lot of money).
Continuity matters here as well. The most successful teams identify a core group of players and keep them together several seasons; teams that re-sign their own players (at reasonable amounts) get good marks from me. The bottom line, though, is how much better is a team after its offseason moves than it was before? That is what is being ranked here: improvement.
And, with more and more teams terrified of paying the luxury tax, a team that stands pat must be viewed in the context of preserving cap space and/or flexibility in order to be able to do things down the road. Should the Philadelphia 76ers just throw money at someone who could help them win a few more games this season, rather than continually rolling their cap space over for another day? I had to make a judgment on that. Same with the Boston Celtics, who wanted to do something big before the Draft but couldn't pull it off.
Off-season winners list basically...
About the only thing NO did was hire Alvin Gentry, and lock up Davis so he didn't become RFA next season. Sort of high marks for that. Still, the Pelicans will be a team that nobody wants to play on any given night. They may not even make the playoffs, but they will piss on a lot of parades.
Of course, they lost the Jimmer, and we all know what a huge blow that was. :rolleyes
I'm not saying nothing new but Alvin Gentry is a great offensive coach, he was a big part of GSW offense in Kerr's first year as NBA head coach, and an increase in pace will help to improve Pelicans offense.
The Cavs had the 2nd best offseason, who did they land? Dick Jefferson? :lmao
It's probably because they retained love. Was lots of talks of him leaving. That's obviously huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
DA says that retaining your own free agents is part of his ranking. Sure, landing LMA and West is huge for the Spurs, but keeping Kawhi, Tim, and Danny was even more important.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
The Cavs theoretically could have lost the biggest FA in the league.
theory, lol. lol @ retaining your own free agents counting as "having a great offseason"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
they werent going to lose Lebron :lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
Love was the major signing.
Umm... that's a rather big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
Yeah it is a pretty big deal, imagine if Portland had retained LMA - it would have been a successful off season for them. Instead they are now going to in the bottom of the west.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
A "successful" offseason is one that is above average -- for instance, retaining Aldridge AND signing a significant free agent (or a good haul of significant role players through FA and/or trade) from another team.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobby4germany
An "average" offseason is just retaining everyone you have, drafting a couple guys and just standing pat. That's what the Spurs did last year. Didn't work out too well.
David Aldridge clearly listed that as factoring into how he ranked the teams. Feel free to come up with your own rankings without that criterion.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
Stop crying about an arbitrary ranking system. it's unbecoming.Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT Eagles 2016
1. SpursQuote:
Originally Posted by Seventyniner
2. Clippers
3. Grizzlies
4. Rockets
5. Celtics
......................
28. Suns
29. Guests
30. Ponies
Clips are clear cut second and you could argue it's a toss up with SA (?)
They added Pierce and Lance, they lost M Barnes (which is already an upgrade except against the Spurs :lol ) and retained last minute DA J plus some other less significative stuff
Open the pod bay doors, HAL.Quote:
Originally Posted by BillMc
Resistance is futile.
:lobt2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brazil
Without Barnes and who he's replaced with, their wing defense is putrid now.
not sure how it is worst nowQuote:
Originally Posted by T Park
I'm sorry, Tim, I'm afraid I can't do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by -21-
I was just reading through that site and holy shit :lol The Cavs gave Iman Shumpert a 4 year 40 mil deal.
lolwut?
Suddenly Danny Green's contract looks like a really good deal.
XIt should have looked good without that context tbh. It's good old fashioned robbery when put next to Shumps deal. That and the cap exploding next year will reveal just how much the Spurs shorted him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidd K
Danny, Tim, and West all gave up a pile of cash. Even LMA could have made millions more by staying put. To me, that says they're hungry for that LOB. That's a good place to start.
You're right though - Schumpert at 4/40 makes Danny's deal highway robbery.
His deal seemed normal/slightly high to me (not by much though). But I guess I'm not used to seeing certain players get this much money. I remember everyone talking about how overpaid Luol Deng was and he barely got more than Green is now. And Deng is, or at least was, quite a decent player at the time too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
I mean. . .Shumpert? 10m? FOUR YEARS? What????
How are the Mavs ahead of the Rockets or the Jazz when talking about offseason improvement? It's quite a bizarre ranking IMO.