Rank West Team by title chance next 5 years

[SharpesTriumph]

Excluding the current bubble, who has the best chance of winning a title.

My rankings;

1 Lakers
2 Warriors
3 Clippers
4 Nuggets
5 Mavs

6 Thunder
7 Blazers
8 Suns
9 Rockets
10 Jazz
11 Pelicans
12 Spurs
13 Grizzlies
14 Kings
15 TWolves

I thought there was a top5 all clearly above the Blazers then teams 6-13 all have arguments for and against.

 

[tester551]

I thought there was a top5 all clearly above the Blazers then teams 6-13 all have arguments for and against.

Agreed. There's a clear top 5.
All the other teams 6-15 basically have no chance without a major change in course.

 

[Buffalo Custard]

Thunder and Rockettes strike me as wild cards as both are looking at major changes.

Warriors
Flakers
Denver
Dallas
Clips
Suns
Jazz
Griz
Thunder*
Rockets*
Pelicans
Blazers
Spurs
Kings
TWolves

 

[wizenheimer]

Excluding the current bubble, who has the best chance of winning a title.

My rankings;

1 Lakers
2 Warriors
3 Clippers
4 Nuggets
5 Mavs

6 Thunder
7 Blazers
8 Suns
9 Rockets
10 Jazz
11 Pelicans
12 Spurs
13 Grizzlies
14 Kings
15 TWolves

I thought there was a top5 all clearly above the Blazers then teams 6-13 all have arguments for and against.

I'm sold on Doncic but I'm not sold on his supporting cast, so I'm not sure I'd include the Mavs in that top group yet

I'd also, maybe, slide Utah higher up next to Portland, although they seem to have worse injury luck than the Blazers

 

[Mediocre Man]

Warriors
Lakers
Clippers
Nuggets
Jazz
Dallas
NO
Phoenix
Memphis
Houston
Portland
SA
OKC
Minnesota
Sacramento

 

[Hoopguru]

Warriors
Clippers
Nuggets
Lakers
Dallas
Blazers
Phoenix
Jazz
NO
Houston
OKC
Memphis
SA
Sac
Minn

 

[SlyPokerDog]

1. Blazers
2-15. F' everyone else

 

[Chris Craig]

My rankings;

1 Lakers
2 Clippers
3 Warriors
4 Nuggets
5 Blazers

6 Mavs
7 Jazz
8 Suns
9 Rockets
10 Thunder
11 Pelicans
12 Spurs
13 Grizzlies
14 Kings
15 TWolves

 

[Wizard Mentor]

The Pels have a big future - they have a lot of picks...

 

[Pinwheel1]

I wonder if someone can find the one we did 2-3 years ago. As I recall it did not work out the way we thought.
Injuries, bad picks, and stupid trades all were factors. Denver was still up there, but so were the Wolves, Thunder, Jazz and maybe even the Kings.

 

[blazerkor]

I just think 5 years is a long time to predict team level competitiveness. So I don't have much of an opinion. I think Denver and Dallas have the best shot in year 4 and 5 or maybe even before. It's just that in the NBA one or two players can come along that are either not drafted right now or are too early in their development to know about and literally transform a franchise, especially when we are projecting more than a year or two out. That's not even mentioning lopsided trades or free agent signings that shift power dramatically. Three years ago before LeBron signed with the Lakers it would have been laughable to put them on this list and before they got AD this last off season it still would have been ill advised to consider them one of the top favorites. It's just very hard to predict and then you factor in the uncertainty of the league's future. What will the new CBA look like? Will there be amnesties? Might the NBA lose a season making it even less likely that a LeBron led team would be a factor for more than a couple more seasons? A lot of additional question marks on something that is usually so highly speculative.

I will say that whether the Lakers win this championship or not (I think they are definitely going to), they will be the prohibitive favorites next season, having the opportunity to once again sign some new ring chasers and use the MLE on someone even better. I say that with full awareness of the inevitable re-emergence of the Warriors and emergence of the Nets (I know that's the Eastern Conference but this is about championships).

 

[e_blazer]

1. Blazers
2-15. F' everyone else

The only answer worth entertaining.

 

[BoomChakaLaka]

Not including this season: Top five teams with a chance to win a title over next 5 seasons:

Trailblazers
Lakers
Nuggets
Suns
Pelicans

 

[SharpesTriumph]

I just think 5 years is a long time to predict team level competitiveness. So I don't have much of an opinion. I think Denver and Dallas have the best shot in year 4 and 5 or maybe even before. It's just that in the NBA one or two players can come along that are either not drafted right now or are too early in their development to know about and literally transform a franchise, especially when we are projecting more than a year or two out. That's not even mentioning lopsided trades or free agent signings that shift power dramatically. Three years ago before LeBron signed with the Lakers it would have been laughable to put them on this list and before they got AD this last off season it still would have been ill advised to consider them one of the top favorites. It's just very hard to predict and then you factor in the uncertainty of the league's future. What will the new CBA look like? Will there be amnesties? Might the NBA lose a season making it even less likely that a LeBron led team would be a factor for more than a couple more seasons? A lot of additional question marks on something that is usually so highly speculative.

I will say that whether the Lakers win this championship or not (I think they are definitely going to), they will be the prohibitive favorites next season, having the opportunity to once again sign some new ring chasers and use the MLE on someone even better. I say that with full awareness of the inevitable re-emergence of the Warriors and emergence of the Nets (I know that's the Eastern Conference but this is about championships).

Think of it this way, you get $100 for a team that wins a title in the next 5 years. What order would you select west teams?

Yes some teams will peak in year 5 like the Mavs or maybe Thunder. Others peak now but have mortgaged away picks in 5 years like the Lakers&Clippers.

Yes there are tons of unknowns that will impact this, thats why its a projection.

Another way of thinking of it, what roster&picks&mgmt would you trade with the Blazers to increase odds of a title? I would say Lakers/Clippers/Warriors/Nuggets/Mavs are all clearly superior.

 

[blazerkor]

Think of it this way, you get $100 for a team that wins a title in the next 5 years. What order would you select west teams?

Yes some teams will peak in year 5 like the Mavs or maybe Thunder. Others peak now but have mortgaged away picks in 5 years like the Lakers&Clippers.

Yes there are tons of unknowns that will impact this, thats why its a projection.

Another way of thinking of it, what roster&picks&mgmt would you trade with the Blazers to increase odds of a title? I would say Lakers/Clippers/Warriors/Nuggets/Mavs are all clearly superior.

Lakers now and the next two years
Warriors will be contenders when/if healthy
Nuggets already and even more so with experience/development
Mavs are a year away from being the Nuggets or maybe even better
Pelicans have so much young talent and so many picks and they could cash Holiday in for more picks and young talent so for them years 3-5
Blazers because I am a kool-aid drinking homer

I know it was a five team exercise but I had to add that sixth team. I left the other LA team off because I just don't think the Clippers have the mix right and I don't know if they will find it. All of these teams may be impeded in their chances for championships by the rise of the Nets they have the right mix of youth and current star power to get on a serious roll.

 

[e_blazer]

Too many changes from year to year to really take too much stock in predictions like these. I'd definitely agree that right now the Blazers look to be stuck in mediocrity. Maybe Olshey will pull off some magic. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Cugel]

Tier 1

Lakers, Warriors, Clippers, Denver, Houston (?), Dallas (?)

Tier 2

Utah, Phoenix, Pels, Grizz, Portland, Spurs, Minnesota

Tier 3

Sacramento, OKC,

 

[KSF-ERIC]

Excluding the current bubble, who has the best chance of winning a title.

My rankings;

1 Lakers
2 Warriors
3 Clippers
4 Nuggets
5 Mavs

6 Thunder
7 Blazers
8 Suns
9 Rockets
10 Jazz
11 Pelicans
12 Spurs
13 Grizzlies
14 Kings
15 TWolves

I thought there was a top5 all clearly above the Blazers then teams 6-13 all have arguments for and against.

I don’t know about Clippers. Kawhi & PG can leave for nothing next year. I agree with the other teams. Put Blazers in top 5 cuz of Dame.

 

[PHXBlazer1]

Blazers
Suns
Grizzlies
Jazz
Nuggets

 

[kjironman1]

In this league anything longer than a year or two is absolutely impossible to say.
This year it looks like Lakers or Miami. After that you could choose any of the top 10-12 teams for next year.
Just too many variables after 2021 and into 2022.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

A lot also depends on whether we're playing in a bubble. The Suns looked pretty amazing in the bubble, for example. Why should we think that they won't continue? Booker was making the Jamal Murray leap before Jamal Murray did. Also I think people are forgetting that the Jazz were without Bogdanovic. Maybe if they'd've had him we wouldn't be talking about the Nuggets except how bad they looked getting swept out.

Teams with very promising young cores:
Denver
Phoenix (they will have the starting five with the best worst player in the league very soon, if they don't already, just like the Blazers did in the Drexler heyday)
Dallas (still not sold on Porzingis's durability)
Pels (they would benefit by NOT being in the bubble. Plus I'm assuming they re-sign Ingram)
Memphis

 

[wizenheimer]

Also I think people are forgetting that the Jazz were without Bogdanovic. Maybe if they'd've had him we wouldn't be talking about the Nuggets except how bad they looked getting swept out.

but that's not the gauge used around here. The only thing that counts is who Portland was missing. That Utah was missing a guy who averaged 20 points isn't noticeable when Portland was missing Zach. That the Lakers were missing Rondo and Bradley is irrelevant because Portland was missing Hood and Ariza. That Denver made it to the WCF without Barton is no big deal, but hey, how about those Blazers making it to the WCF last year without Nurkic!

 

[e_blazer]

but that's not the gauge used around here. The only thing that counts is who Portland was missing. That Utah was missing a guy who averaged 20 points isn't noticeable when Portland was missing Zach. That the Lakers were missing Rondo and Bradley is irrelevant because Portland was missing Hood and Ariza. That Denver made it to the WCF without Barton is no big deal, but hey, how about those Blazers making it to the WCF last year without Nurkic!

Yeah, every team has its injuries, but you have to admit that the Blazers were seriously snake-bit this season when it came to injuries. Pre-bubble: Nurk out, and Hood & Collins out for all but a handful of games...that's 3/5ths of the starting lineup. I think that makes a significant dent in any team's season. In the bubble: No Ariza or Hood. Collins out for the playoffs. Little lost due to concussion/dehydration. CJ playing with fracture in his back. Dame dislocates finger in second playoff game and then injures his knee in the 4th game of the series. They weren't going to beat the Lakers anyway, but they certainly had no chance with those injury factors in play.

 

[wizenheimer]

Yeah, every team has its injuries, but you have to admit that the Blazers were seriously snake-bit this season when it came to injuries. Pre-bubble: Nurk out, and Hood & Collins out for all but a handful of games...that's 3/5ths of the starting lineup. I think that makes a significant dent in any team's season. In the bubble: No Ariza or Hood. Collins out for the playoffs. Little lost due to concussion/dehydration. CJ playing with fracture in his back. Dame dislocates finger in second playoff game and then injures his hip in the 4th game of the series. They weren't going to beat the Lakers anyway, but they certainly had no chance with those injury factors in play.

Ariza wasn't injured and Little may not have played anyway. CJ's back injury was a non-factor and even he said that was the case

Nurkic has been healthy for two Portland playoff series now and the Blazers were 1-8; and they made the WCF without Nurkic. Hood may never be the same again and Portland was only 8-12 with him this year. Ariza was missed quite a bit I think, but AD would have crushed Zach or at the very least, had him on the bench saddled with fouls. And Zach wasn't the starter because he had earned it, he was the starter by default because Olshey cleared the roster of any other competition for that role

I don't dismiss Portland's injuries because they were significant. But other teams overcame significant injuries. Sure, the Blazers would have been more of a challenge for the Lakers if healthy. But if you cast the Blazers with Zach, Hood, and Ariza, you also have to cast the Lakers with Rondo and Bradley. And those two guards would be matched up against Dame and CJ, negating some of whatever advantage Portland had in the back court

point being the assumption that Portland would somehow be a contender if completely totally healthy seems flawed to me. For one thing, they will probably never be completely healthy. For another thing, if missing some role players knocks a team down so much, there are probably some problems above the level of the role players

 

[e_blazer]

First, I never said that the Blazers were a contender to beat the Lakers. The Lakers two best players are better than our two best players. In your first post you stated that the Lakers didn't have Bradley, but you don't allow me to use Ariza as a factor for the Blazers? CJ wouldn't use his back as an excuse, but to say it wasn't a factor is absurd, especially early in the play-in games. I don't think that there's another team that overcame as many injuries and roster losses as the Blazers, but ultimately this is like one of the non-fights I get into from time to time with my wife. We both pretty much agree that the Blazers aren't good enough, even when healthy, to compete for a title. Until they figure out the defensive end of the game, which is probably going to require a roster change, they will compete for a 3-6 seed if they are healthy, but will ultimately lose in the playoffs.

 

[wizenheimer]

First, I never said that the Blazers were a contender to beat the Lakers. The Lakers two best players are better than our two best players. In your first post you stated that the Lakers didn't have Bradley, but you don't allow me to use Ariza as a factor for the Blazers? CJ wouldn't use his back as an excuse, but to say it wasn't a factor is absurd, especially early in the play-in games. I don't think that there's another team that overcame as many injuries and roster losses as the Blazers, but ultimately this is like one of the non-fights I get into from time to time with my wife. We both pretty much agree that the Blazers aren't good enough, even when healthy, to compete for a title. Until they figure out the defensive end of the game, which is probably going to require a roster change, they will compete for a 3-6 seed if they are healthy, but will ultimately lose in the playoffs.

but ultimately, you'll have to finesse your way into tranquility with your wife. Me you can just call an asshole and go from there

 

[kjironman1]

but ultimately, you'll have to finesse your way into tranquility with your wife. Me you can just call an asshole and go from there

How would anyone come to the conclusion that you could possibly be an asshole?

 

[wizenheimer]

How would anyone come to the conclusion that you could possibly be an asshole?

Sly is spreading rumors again

 

[Drttimmy]

This is pretty good question I think, because the West seems as wide open as I can recall. Working under the unlikely premise that everyone stays where they are, there are no SuperTeams and not really factoring future acquisitions.
*The Lakers are likely to win the championship and I think the Durant era Warriors would probably handle them pretty easily. If LeBron was 3-4 year younger, then the Lakers would be the easy and probably only choice over the next 5 years as I think they could develop into a SuperTeam. But he's not. I can seem them repeating next year, then fading to the pretender tier.
*I really like the Nuggets - good depth, well rounded, a guy in Murray who can close games for them. I think they just need an All Star 3rd wheel, and maybe that's Porter? I'm not factoring whether they can keep the talent financially.
*The only other two teams I like are the Clippers and Mavericks. I like their best players and they both have great front offices, probably the two most important factors in team building. Both teams have proven they can turnover fast. Wouldn't be at all shocked if they replace their number 2 players sooner than later.

*Utah - top end talent isn't good enough
*Houston - come on, with Harden as their best player?
*OKC - they're curious only because of the picks.
*Phoenix - I think they could be the new Portland, making some noise in the playoffs, but ultimately not good enough
*GS - everybody's 30 or over with injuries. It's not an old man's league. They got the 2nd pick, but that's not really a guarantee historically speaking.
*Portland - I do like our top 3 guys, maybe even better than any other team in the 2nd tier/pretender tier. It's also the hardest thing to get right. It's 4-12 that bothers me and I don't think our GM is capable of making the necessary upgrades. If we magically got Jerry West, Donnie Nelson, or Ujiri, then we could move up fast.