Best and Worst managed teams in the NBA

[Daddy 801]

The Jazz should be up there with the best managed. They've drafted relatively well, and put together strong teams in the post-Malone/Stockton era. Except for maybe 2 seasons, they've also put up respectable win/loss records for the talent they were fielding in their non-playoff seasons.

Not to be a homer, but the Jazz also just put their team in a trust ensuring the team is here indefinitely. That's bigger than anything.

[mudsak]

Current

1. Golden State
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Rockets
5. Heat
6. Jazz
7. Nets
8. Mavericks
9. Raptors
10. Sixers
11. Thunder
12. Suns
13. Lakers
14. Bucks
15. Nuggets
16. Grizzlies
17. Timberwolves
18. Trail Blazers
19. Hornets
20. Wizards
21. Cavs
22. Clippers
23. Hawks
24. Pistons
25. Magic
26. Bulls
27. Pacers
28. Pelicans
29. Kings
30. Knicks

My opinion of course

Nets at 7... interesting choice.

[monopoman]

I do get a kick out of people calling the Wolves front office one of the best when they have had trouble even making the playoffs since KG left.

You figure if they had a top tier front office it wouldn't have taken then 13 years and counting to get back in the playoffs.

I mean the Sixers get a lot of flack for "intentionally tanking" but what do you call 13 years without a single playoff berth in the NBA?

[sule]

Current

1. Golden State
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Rockets
5. Heat
6. Jazz
7. Nets
8. Mavericks
9. Raptors
10. Sixers
11. Thunder
12. Suns
13. Lakers
14. Bucks
15. Nuggets
16. Grizzlies
17. Timberwolves
18. Trail Blazers
19. Hornets
20. Wizards
21. Cavs
22. Clippers
23. Hawks
24. Pistons
25. Magic
26. Bulls
27. Pacers
28. Pelicans
29. Kings
30. Knicks

My opinion of course

Nets at 7... interesting choice.

To be fair, the current iteration of the Nets management is doing a lot of things right and setting themselves up with a strong culture of hard work and long-term planning.

[Village Idiot]

I choose to group the teams by tiers

Tier 1. Class acts - good at everything

Golden State
San Antonio

Tier 2. Consistently well managed and showing good results

Boston
Houston
Portland
Oklahoma City
Utah
Miami
Toronto
Washington


Tier 3. Consistently well managed but not currently among the better teams

Dallas


Tier 4. Showing signs of improvement in management and/or results

New Orleans
Brooklyn
Philadelphia
LA Lakers
Milwaukee
Minnesota
Sacramento

Tier 5. Things looks to be getting worse in management and/or results


Memphis
Atlanta
Cleveland
Chicago
Indiana

Tier 6. Uncertain strategy, uncertain execution

Phoenix
LA Clippers
Denver
Detroit
Orlando
New York
Charlotte

[spaceballer]

Over what time span, currently?

Spurs
Celtics
Rockets
Warriors

-

Kings
Knicks
Magic
Nets

How do you use "currently" and then list the Nets at the bottom? They are one of the top front office management teams currently, ever since they ditched Billy King and replaced him with a bunch of guys poached from the Spurs. Certainly in the upper half of the rankings if not higher. The new management guys poached from the Spurs have done a good job so far in light of the mess Billy King left.

[The_Hater]

Best no order:

Warriors
Spurs
Timberwolves
Rockets
Celtics

Worst no order:

Knicks
Nuggets
Bulls
Kings
Magic

The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in 14 years but the Bulls have won at least half their games 13 times over that same period.

Very confused on how the Nuggets are in the bottom 5 while the Wolves get such high marks.

[zronv7]

worst
-Knicks
-Kings
-Magic


best
-Spurs
-Celtics
-Warriors

[DeRoma]

Current

1. Golden State
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Rockets
5. Heat
6. Jazz
7. Nets
8. Mavericks
9. Raptors
10. Sixers
11. Thunder
12. Suns
13. Lakers
14. Bucks
15. Nuggets
16. Grizzlies
17. Timberwolves
18. Trail Blazers
19. Hornets
20. Wizards
21. Cavs
22. Clippers
23. Hawks
24. Pistons
25. Magic
26. Bulls
27. Pacers
28. Pelicans
29. Kings
30. Knicks

My opinion of course

My take:

1. Warriors
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Thunder
5. Nets
6. Mavericks
7. Jazz
8. Sixers
9. Rockets
10. Cavs
11. Raptors
12. Heat
13. Nuggets
14. Bucks
15. Timberwolves
16. Kings
17. Lakers
18. Wizards
19. Pistons
20. Hornets
21. Clippers
22. Suns
23. Grizzlies
24. Magic
25. Bulls
26. Blazers
27. Pacers
28. Hawks
29. Knicks
30. Pelicans

[LakerLegend]

Best no order:

Warriors
Spurs
Timberwolves
Rockets
Celtics

Worst no order:

Knicks
Nuggets
Bulls
Kings
Magic

The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in 14 years but the Bulls have won at least half their games 13 times over that same period.

Very confused on how the Nuggets are in the bottom 5 while the Wolves get such high marks.

Both teams have had changes in management. No one cares what happened 13 years ago.

Look at the Bulls and Wolves rosters two years ago vs. now.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I see a lot of the consensus is that Boston front office is good.... We're talking about the same team that failed to get Butler or George and see both get traded for a box of jelly donuts shortly after right? The same team that passed on Lonzo Ball by trading their first pick? The team that could have ran Hayward, George/Butler, and Ball next year but hit the snooze button twice? Does this sound like competent front management to you?

The team got who they wanted locked to a long term contract, took the prospect they wanted while adding another high pick (it's written nowhere that Lonzo will be better than Tatum).
And I can't imagine any scenario where they could get both Hayward and George/Butler.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

[The_Hater]

Best no order:

Warriors
Spurs
Timberwolves
Rockets
Celtics

Worst no order:

Knicks
Nuggets
Bulls
Kings
Magic

The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in 14 years but the Bulls have won at least half their games 13 times over that same period.

Very confused on how the Nuggets are in the bottom 5 while the Wolves get such high marks.

Both teams have had changes in management. No one cares what happened 13 years ago.

Look at the Bulls and Wolves rosters two years ago vs. now.

No where in your title or opening post does it say 'at this very moment in time'. Even then, that's a very arbitrary thing to say. Teams have to be judged over some period of time to be assessed fairly. Perhaps I've decided thst 14 years is a fair period to judge these teams?

What has Denver done to get such a bad current grade from you? They've built a nice base of young talent and are moving the right direction. No different than Minnesota really. Phoenix, now there's a team that has made a boatload of poor draft/trade/free agent decisions over the past few seasons while losing a boatload of games in the process.

[Jadoogar]

Top 5
- GSW
- Spurs
- Boston (hate them but Ainge is good)
- Houston
- OKC (won the Ibaka trade and then traded those guys and won the trade again)

Bottom 5
- Knicks
- Orlando (can't evaluate new management yet but they made the worst signings last year)
- Kings
- Pelicans (that Holiday contract is going to hurt, solomon hill, omer asik)
- Bulls (should be #1)

[LakerLegend]

The Wolves haven't made the playoffs in 14 years but the Bulls have won at least half their games 13 times over that same period.

Very confused on how the Nuggets are in the bottom 5 while the Wolves get such high marks.

Both teams have had changes in management. No one cares what happened 13 years ago.

Look at the Bulls and Wolves rosters two years ago vs. now.

No where in your title or opening post does it say 'at this very moment in time'. Even then, that's a very arbitrary thing to say. Teams have to be judged over some period of time to be assessed fairly. Perhaps I've decided thst 14 years is a fair period to judge these teams?

What has Denver done to get such a bad current grade from you? They've built a nice base of young talent and are moving the right direction. No different than Minnesota really. Phoenix, now there's a team that has made a boatload of poor draft/trade/free agent decisions over the past few seasons while losing a boatload of games in the process.

Common sense dictates we are talking about current regimes.

You want to bring up trades from the 60's and 70's then?

[grindtime22]

I see a lot of the consensus is that Boston front office is good.... We're talking about the same team that failed to get Butler or George and see both get traded for a box of jelly donuts shortly after right? The same team that passed on Lonzo Ball by trading their first pick? The team that could have ran Hayward, George/Butler, and Ball next year but hit the snooze button twice? Does this sound like competent front management to you?

The team got who they wanted locked to a long term contract, took the prospect they wanted while adding another high pick (it's written nowhere that Lonzo will be better than Tatum).
And I can't imagine any scenario where they could get both Hayward and George/Butler.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

There was a scenario for Hayward and George, but it had to be pulled off in the right order and people still don't understand it.

The Celtics had to shave additional salary (Avery Bradley trade did this) just to be able to sign Hayward. If they traded for George before signing Hayward, they would have had to send out George's full salary plus additional money all in guaranteed salaries to be able to sign Hayward. Boston did not have the contracts to do it in that order and still make sense. We are talking about Jae Crowder, Avery Bradley, Marcus Smart, and Terry Rozier going out to get the money to work. Then you start talking about the assets the Pacers really wanted AFTER that (picks).

It was much better to get Hayward first and then they would have only had to send out the minimum required in a trade 14.6 million I believe.

Either way, it was going to be possible but extremely difficult to pull off. BUT, any trade for George or Butler pre-Hayward would have compromised their ability to get Hayward for just the cost of cap space. It would have also required them to start gutting before they had any guarantee that Hayward was coming. Going through that process without a guaranteed future with George would not have been worth it.

There is also the fact that the Celtics offered the Brooklyn 2017 pick at the trade deadline for George and got turned down.

[grindtime22]

I see a lot of the consensus is that Boston front office is good.... We're talking about the same team that failed to get Butler or George and see both get traded for a box of jelly donuts shortly after right? The same team that passed on Lonzo Ball by trading their first pick? The team that could have ran Hayward, George/Butler, and Ball next year but hit the snooze button twice? Does this sound like competent front management to you?

Really? That is your evidence? Has the patience backfired yet?

The trade everybody is so sure of now, people weren't so sure of when he made it and tore down the team. Yet he made the trade for 3 first round picks and swap rights.

It has now netted

2014 #17
2016 #3
2017 #3
2018 Brooklyn Pick
2018 Lakers/2019 Kings Pick

They also got a trade exception in that deal, which they flipped with a second round pick for Tyler Zeller, Marcus Thorton, and a Cavs 1st round pick. They then later flipped that pick and Thorton for Isaiah Thomas in the 1st year of a 4 year/28 million dollar contract.

Who was an All Star in the second year of that contract and All-NBA 2nd team in the 3rd year.


Ainge flipped Jordan Crawford for 3 good second round picks (2 76ers, 1 Heat)

Ainge flipped Rondo and Dwight Powell for Jae Crowder, Brandon Wright AND a 1st round pick (2016 #16) and 2nd round pick (2016 #46). Brandon Wright was then flipped for 2 Twolves 2nd round picks. He then signed Jae Crowder to one of the biggest bargains in basketball (5 years, 35 million).

Ainge flipped Jeff Green Memphis for a 1st round pick and Austin Rivers and Taushan Prince. Austin Rivers then got a 2nd round pick from the Clippers and Prince somehow netted Jerebko from Detroit.

Lets also not forget that he got a 1st round pick from the Clippers for Doc Rivers. He then came out of nowhere and hired a college coach that is now considered one of the best coaches in the NBA in Brad Stevens.

We are talking about a team that did a COMPLETE teardown in the summer of 2013. Yet by the second year of the rebuild they were in the playoffs and the 4th were the 1st seed in the east and in the eastern conference finals. Celtics fans had to endure one bad year. Now they are in year 4 and in the ECF and still have more young assets and picks than the majority of teams.

Everyone has been screaming for them to cash in NOW!! since the rebuild started. It hasn't happened, yet

25 to 40 to 48 to 53

and they have maintained the treasure trove of young assets and draft picks at the same time. They still have Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, 2018 Brookyln, 2018 Lakers/2019 Kings, 2019 Memphis, 2019 Clippers, Ante Zizc, Guerschon Yabuselle, their own picks

Acting like this isn't one of the best managed teams in the NBA is just silly

[The_Hater]

I see a lot of the consensus is that Boston front office is good.... We're talking about the same team that failed to get Butler or George and see both get traded for a box of jelly donuts shortly after right? The same team that passed on Lonzo Ball by trading their first pick? The team that could have ran Hayward, George/Butler, and Ball next year but hit the snooze button twice? Does this sound like competent front management to you?

They could have paid whatever Indiana and Chicago were demanding and got one or both but thst doesn't mean they're good moves and that shouldn't be the measure of their competence.

Ainge built one championship team already and just turned that team compeltley around in just 4 seasons to get them on top of the conference again without either of those aforementioned players on the roster. And along with Tatum he still has another likely Brooklyn lottery pick and a likely Kings lottery pick in his back pocket for each of the next 2 seasons.

Calling Danny Ainge less than competent based on the bounty of great moves he's made the past 12-13 years is ridiculous by any measure. He's still playing chess while a huge majority of the leagues GM's are struggling to play checkers. And I hate the Celtics.

[Nuggets_Talk]

I'm shocked that nobody has mentioned Portland as one of the worst yet. Anybody here realize their roster is the highest paid roster in the NBA?

They are the highest paid roster because free agents don't want to go there. It is the same with Cleveland if you remove LeBron. Kevin Love wouldn't have demanded a trade to Cavs if LeBron wasn't there.

Blazers have a filthy rich owner who knows it and is happy to keep Lillard and others in Portland. Hell, I'm sure that KD wouldn't have taken such a big pay cut if he wasn't playing in the bay area which is a great place to live for rich people and where the owner could get him involved in other investment opportunities that appeal to a young NBA player.

Even Paul Allen cares about the lux tax.
They just admitted they overpaid crabbe

[The_Hater]

Current

1. Golden State
2. Spurs
3. Celtics
4. Rockets
5. Heat
6. Jazz
7. Nets
8. Mavericks
9. Raptors
10. Sixers
11. Thunder
12. Suns
13. Lakers
14. Bucks
15. Nuggets
16. Grizzlies
17. Timberwolves
18. Trail Blazers
19. Hornets
20. Wizards
21. Cavs
22. Clippers
23. Hawks
24. Pistons
25. Magic
26. Bulls
27. Pacers
28. Pelicans
29. Kings
30. Knicks

My opinion of course

Nets at 7... interesting choice.

Post Billy King they've been much better. Not #7 IMO but no longer in the bottom handful.

[Darkstar]

LOL at so many haters not Including Miami in the top 5.

Warriors
Spurs
Heat
Rockets
Celts

Worst? who cares