Sam Amico Dials-In Blazers @ #9

[ABM]

Although, the Wiz @ #8 is at least a curious pick.

http://probasketballnews.com/story/?storyid=676

There are still a lot of things that can (and will) happen between now and the start of training camp in October.

As PBN colleague Chris Bernucca pointed out, we're still waiting for the Minnesota Timberwolves to hire a coach and the Philadelphia 76ers to find a point guard. And as far as I'm concerned, the NBA season doesn't officially start until Allen Iverson signs.

But based on rosters as they stand today, here's my take on the best and worst of the NBA:

1. Los Angeles Lakers - Slid Ron Artest in Trevor Ariza's old role, re-signed Lamar Odom and still have Kobe Bryant. No reason to think they can't win it all again.

2. Cleveland Cavaliers - Much-improved bench now consists of Zydrunas Ilagauskas, Anthony Parker and Jamario Moon, with another signing (Joe Smith? Steve Novak?) likely still to come.

3. San Antonio Spurs - Landing Richard Jefferson and Antonio McDyess gives Spurs two more guys with Finals experience and makes them biggest threat to L.A.

4. Boston Celtics - Still need a backup PG, but a healthy Kevin Garnett and addition of Rasheed Wallace gives C's length and defense that resulted in title two seasons ago.

5. Denver Nuggets - Haven't done squat this off-season, but sometimes, just keeping the nucleus of team together can work wonders. Especially when that nucleus includes Carmelo Anthony and Chauncey Billups.

6. Orlando Magic - Lost three starters off Finals team (Hedo Turkuglo, Courtney Lee, Rafer Alston), adding Vince Carter and Matt Barnes. Time to adjust will be needed, but Magic could still emerge out of East again.

7. Dallas Mavericks - Everyone is back, happy and healthy. Additions of Shawn Marion and Drew Gooden give Mavs more depth and versatility. Could be a major factor by season's end.

8. Washington Wizards - Return to relevancy is highly likely with returns of Gilbert Arenas, DeShawn Stevenson and Brendan Haywood, and additions of Randy Foye, Mike Miller and especially, coach Flip Saunders.

9. Portland Trail Blazers - Same old very good young talent, now a year older and wiser with valuable playoff experience. Just imagine if Greg Oden finally lives up to expectations.......................

 

[tlongII]

I would put us at #4 behind LA, Cleveland, and Boston. We're better than the rest of those teams.

 

[Nikolokolus]

]I would put us at #4[/B] behind LA, Cleveland, and Boston. We're better than the rest of those teams.

And if I subtract out the "homer factor" that should put us right about at 8th ... works for me.

 

[Minstrel]

And if I subtract out the "homer factor" that should put us right about at 8th ... works for me.

I think Portland is better than Washington (!) and Dallas. And on par with Denver and maybe Orlando and San Antonio.

 

[Dufferduck]

I would put us at #4 behind LA, Cleveland, and Boston. We're better than the rest of those teams.

Better than S.A, Orlando, Denver ??

 

[ODENISGOD]

I would put the blazers at #7 and KP at #30 right behind Isiah

 

[MrJayremmie]

I'd put us at 7 and Dallas at 8.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Better than S.A, Orlando, Denver ??

Denver, yes. Orlando, maybe. SA, not quite.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I think Portland is better than Washington (!) and Dallas. And on par with Denver and maybe Orlando and San Antonio.

Washington could be pretty good, assuming Arenas is at full speed and Foye should be at minimum a nice addition to their guard rotation. I suppose there's fudge factor in any of these subjective rankings. As for being better than Dallas, until we do better than getting swept by them in the regular season I'm not ready to say this Blazers team is instantly better than the Mavs, especially if Marion is effective backing up both Nowitski and Howard.

 

[Idog1976]

I would put the blazers at #7 and KP at #30 right behind Isiah

Dude take off the

I'm tired of all the sunshine you blow up everyones ass. Can we see a gritty analysis that has a critical element? Endlessly singing management's praises and never finding fault with anyone it gets old man. Seriously, quit holding back man you're better then that, give it to us straight!

 

[ABM]

Dude take off the

I'm tired of all the sunshine you blow up everyones ass. Can we see a gritty analysis that has a critical element? Endlessly singing management's praises and never finding fault with anyone it gets old man. Seriously, quit holding back man you're better then that, give it to us straight!

 

[Wizard Mentor]

And if I subtract out the "homer factor" that should put us right about at 8th ... works for me.

We were tied for 6th last year. If someone would have predicted what actually happened, you would have called them out as a homer, and been wrong. Maybe the homer factor isn't is big as you think.

 

[KingSpeed]

We were tied for 6th last year. .

We were tied for 5th. Orlando, LA, Cleveland, and Boston were the only teams who won more games than us last season. So how does a team that will have improved and grown this season end up dropping? The answer is they won't. Blazers a top 5 team, no less.

 

[tlongII]

We were tied for 5th. Orlando, LA, Cleveland, and Boston were the only teams who won more games than us last season. So how does a team that will have improved and grown this season end up dropping? The answer is they won't. Blazers a top 5 team, no less.

That's absolutely correct. And what is up with people thinking San Antonio will be so good? That team is old and brittle and will go nowhere. Orlando will be worse without Turkoglu and lmao @ Dallas.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I think SA and Dallas get so much respect because they are teams that have competed at the top of their conference year in and year out. Portland has had it's one good year and people (especially national analyst) aren't convinced Portland will keep going forward each year.

Last summer NO was the new darling of the western conference. A young up and coming team that will be competing for the Western confrence title for years.

I don't even know if Ptd is the new darling this summer, but even if they are . . . Denver and Dallas both made it out of the first round and have either gotten better or remained the same. SA is a proven contender that was hurt last year. I could see why the Blazers are ranked where they are.

Personally, I like predictions that put the Blazers lower . . . it's fun to be the surprise of the league.

 

[Kaydow]

Before last season and all of the injuries to the Wizards they were:

45-37 in '03-'04
42-40 in '04-'05
41-41 in '05-'06
43-39 in '06-'07

Pretty much a .500 team with the nucleus of Arenas, Jamison, & Butler. Never played any defense and never seriously contended for a title. Mike Miller and Randy Foye are supposed to put you over the hump? I'm not buying it.

 

[Nikolokolus]

We were tied for 6th last year. If someone would have predicted what actually happened, you would have called them out as a homer, and been wrong. Maybe the homer factor isn't is big as you think.

I guess we'll see.

 

[Tyler_Hansbrough]

The Wiz at 8?!?! Before us?!?! lol

 

[Shooter]

Portland has had it's one good year and people (especially national analyst) aren't convinced Portland will keep going forward each year.

Why not? Is there some reason we won't keep getting better, but other teams will?

 

[Eastoff]

I would put Chicago up above washington, but I would put us up around 4-6

(added)
I still think relevant Western Conference goes

LA
SA
Denver, Portland, Dallas (tied)

I really haven't watched enough eastern conference teams to rank them

 

[hasoos]

Why not? Is there some reason we won't keep getting better, but other teams will?

I think they all got better. Portland did. Most of the teams in the western conference did. I think the question is, how do you measure how much better they have become?

It is very hard for Portland to analyze it's situation because we don't know how much better the players will have become. But when we look at San Antonio, we know what they got with RJ. When we look at Dallas, we know what they got with Marion.

Even the one free agent Portland did bring in, seems to be a mixed review as to how much he will help the team. Some people think Miller is what we need. Others think it is a dart thrown at the board.

Lastly, a lot of folks don't want to end up with a situation like New Orleans did. Made the playoffs and were considered contenders. Then they didn't improve, got hit by the injury bug, and no longer snuck up on anybody, and it turned out to be a pretty rough year last year.

 

[rocketeer]

As for being better than Dallas, until we do better than getting swept by them in the regular season I'm not ready to say this Blazers team is instantly better than the Mavs, especially if Marion is effective backing up both Nowitski and Howard.

having the head to head advantage doesn't really say much as far as which is the better team. the mavs may be better than the blazers head to head, but the blazers were better against the rest of the league. was golden state better than the mavs a couple years back when the mavs had the best regular season record and the warriors were the 8th seed? are the bobcats better than the lakers because the bobcats have only lost one game to the lakers in the past 3 years?

I think they all got better. Portland did. Most of the teams in the western conference did. I think the question is, how do you measure how much better they have become?

that is very debatable. i think basically everyone can agree that the spurs got better and the rockets got worse. other than that, everything else is up for debate.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Why not? Is there some reason we won't keep getting better, but other teams will?

Well I don't think because the team is young, one can automatically assume their winning record will get better each year. Blazers had a hell of a year (not so much playoffs) winning a lot of close games and in many games, coming back from a large deficit. I don't believe all are convinced the Blazers will do it again this year and I have read two national analysts saying the Blaers are now overrated.

I mentioned NO in the last post. Some analyst might draw a comparision there and NO took a step back after a very good year.

I just think as for an analyst it is easy to put the organizations that are competeing year in and year out at the top of the list. They are a little more predictable than the young unproven (over the years) teams.

Edit-oops repeated a lot of what hasoos already said.

 

[hasoos]

having the head to head advantage doesn't really say much as far as which is the better team. the mavs may be better than the blazers head to head, but the blazers were better against the rest of the league. was golden state better than the mavs a couple years back when the mavs had the best regular season record and the warriors were the 8th seed? are the bobcats better than the lakers because the bobcats have only lost one game to the lakers in the past 3 years?


that is very debatable. i think basically everyone can agree that the spurs got better and the rockets got worse. other than that, everything else is up for debate.

Note the word "Most".

 

[mook]

It is very hard for Portland to analyze it's situation because we don't know how much better the players will have become. But when we look at San Antonio, we know what they got with RJ. When we look at Dallas, we know what they got with Marion.

At the same time, though, we don't know how much wear is left on Tim Duncan's tires. Or Ginobili's.

We don't really know how Marion will fit in Dallas, given that a lot of his roles are already being played by Howard (athletic 3) and Nowitzki (rebounding 4).

Frankly, I think a lot of people are underrating Portland.

The Blazers have added significant numbers of wins 4 straight years. If you want to talk about consistent teams, there really isn't a more consistently improving team in the league than Portland.

The Hornets, by comparison, went from 18 wins to 38 wins to 39 wins to 56 wins. That team always struck me as a group that got by on an over-performing Chandler and a Peja who was going to start breaking down at any minute.

Portland hasn't really relied on any such fragile veterans to get them to where they are now. On the contrary, they've dealt with a massive rookie injury (Oden's knee) and that looks to be pretty much over with. And they added a veteran guy in Miller who drastically strengthens their weakest position.

Sure, there's no guarantee that all our young players will continue to improve. But if the history of NBA players under the age of 25 is any kind of predictor, the majority of our young guys will be better than they were last year.

Young players generally get better. Old players generally wear out. Our team is loaded with young players, while many of the perennial contenders have a larger proportion of old players.

It's a pretty good bet in my book that Portland has a better record next year than they did last year.

 

[Idog1976]

having the head to head advantage doesn't really say much as far as which is the better team. the mavs may be better than the blazers head to head, but the blazers were better against the rest of the league. was golden state better than the mavs a couple years back when the mavs had the best regular season record and the warriors were the 8th seed? are the bobcats better than the lakers because the bobcats have only lost one game to the lakers in the past 3 years?


that is very debatable. i think basically everyone can agree that the spurs got better and the rockets got worse. other than that, everything else is up for debate.

I pretty much agree with all of that. I like to pretend in my headz that LA w/ Artest is the suxxxorr LOLZ!

 

[rocketeer]

Note the word "Most".

you said most of the teams got better. i said that was debatable. i would say that most of the teams did not get better.

 

[rocketeer]

I pretty much agree with all of that. I like to pretend in my headz that LA w/ Artest is the suxxxorr LOLZ!

i don't think artest makes the lakers worse, but i also don't think he improves the team. he has positives, but he also has negatives that i feel will cancel those out. basically the same way i feel about adding andre miller to the blazers.

 

[hasoos]

you said most of the teams got better. i said that was debatable. i would say that most of the teams did not get better.

Well then you would have to be a master debator to show that one. I can only see a couple of teams who got worse, PHX and Utah, Houston. The rest either improved themselves, have players coming back from injury who did not play much last year, or sat still (Denver). In my book, that meets the definition of most.

 

[rocketeer]

Well then you would have to be a master debator to show that one. I can only see a couple of teams who got worse, PHX and Utah, Houston. The rest either improved themselves, have players coming back from injury who did not play much last year, or sat still (Denver). In my book, that meets the definition of most.

sitting still does not equal getting better.