RealGM

Well things are shaping up.

Cleveland clearly is a lot better
And Chicago should be up there.

The Wizards are making some nice moves, but other teams are getting better as well.

Could the Wizards make to the 3rd or 4th

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1339074&start=160

CHI, CLE
WIZ, MIA, TOR
BRK, CHA, ATL, IND
DET, NY
BOS, MIL, ORL
PHI

I think it break down about like this. So sure, WIZ could be #3 or #5

Hornets just signed Lance. The money was great from Charlotte's perspective, 3yrs/27 with the third year option.


This is good news, we are clearly better than Indy now imo. Not only because they lose Lance (who didn't really hurt us in the playoffs) but because there aren't really any good replacements available. Most likely their SG will be a weak link next season.


As for Charlotte Stephenson will keep them from missing the playoffs, but probably one of the lower seeds unless they address their shooting. Not sure how Lance and Kemba will work together.

This is going to be tough. The east as a whole has improved while the Heat and Pacers fall back to earth, this should be an extremely close race. It's early yet, but bellow is how the I think the East will shake out.

Cleveland
Bulls
Toronto
Wizards
Indiana
Hornets
Heat
Hawks

The southeast in particular is going to be hotly contested, with the Heat, Wizards, and Hornets having a chance to win it. The Wizards need to avoid their typical 2-7 start to have a shot at a top four seed.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I think Toronto is the best team in the East, because most of their players are young, on the rise, and they are deep. A big key for them is for Amir Johnson to stay healthy. I have it:

1) Toronto
2) Wizards
3) Bulls
4) Cavs
5) Hornets
6) Heat
7) Hawks
8) Pacers

Illmatic12 wrote:Hornets just signed Lance. The money was great from Charlotte's perspective, 3yrs/27 with the third year option.


This is good news, we are clearly better than Indy now imo. Not only because they lose Lance (who didn't really hurt us in the playoffs) but because there aren't really any good replacements available. Most likely their SG will be a weak link next season.


As for Charlotte Stephenson will keep them from missing the playoffs, but probably one of the lower seeds unless they address their shooting. Not sure how Lance and Kemba will work together.

Seriously? Lance absolutely manhandled the Beal and the Wizards in game 6. Charlotte was a tough matchup for the Wizards last year and they will be this year too.

As of today (and subject to revision), my guess would be

1-2: Bulls and Cavs
3: Toronto
4-8 in some order: DC, ATL, MIA, IND, CHA

The east is going to be very competitive this year and will lose in 4 or 5 in the finals again.

fishercob wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:Hornets just signed Lance. The money was great from Charlotte's perspective, 3yrs/27 with the third year option.


This is good news, we are clearly better than Indy now imo. Not only because they lose Lance (who didn't really hurt us in the playoffs) but because there aren't really any good replacements available. Most likely their SG will be a weak link next season.


As for Charlotte Stephenson will keep them from missing the playoffs, but probably one of the lower seeds unless they address their shooting. Not sure how Lance and Kemba will work together.

Seriously? Lance absolutely manhandled the Beal and the Wizards in game 6. Charlotte was a tough matchup for the Wizards last year and they will be this year too.

That was literally his only good game in the series. Beal held him in check in the 5 other games.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... stephenson

Illmatic12 wrote:

fishercob wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:Hornets just signed Lance. The money was great from Charlotte's perspective, 3yrs/27 with the third year option.


This is good news, we are clearly better than Indy now imo. Not only because they lose Lance (who didn't really hurt us in the playoffs) but because there aren't really any good replacements available. Most likely their SG will be a weak link next season.


As for Charlotte Stephenson will keep them from missing the playoffs, but probably one of the lower seeds unless they address their shooting. Not sure how Lance and Kemba will work together.

Seriously? Lance absolutely manhandled the Beal and the Wizards in game 6. Charlotte was a tough matchup for the Wizards last year and they will be this year too.

That was literally his only good game in the series. Beal held him in check in the 5 other games.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... stephenson

That may be so, but physically dominating and taking over a close out game doesn't really fit the "didn't really hurt us in the playoffs" narrative.

fishercob wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:

fishercob wrote:

Seriously? Lance absolutely manhandled the Beal and the Wizards in game 6. Charlotte was a tough matchup for the Wizards last year and they will be this year too.

That was literally his only good game in the series. Beal held him in check in the 5 other games.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... stephenson

That may be so, but physically dominating and taking over a close out game doesn't really fit the "didn't really hurt us in the playoffs" narrative.

I think it does.. 1 good game doesn't cancel out 5 mediocre to bad ones. 1/6 = 16.7%. He looked great in that one game, because that's who Lance Stephenson is. He'll look good in one game, and he'll look horrible and hold his team back in the next. I don't expect that to change about him.



Also, a Kemba-Stephenson backcourt is fairly redundant to me. If Stephenson has the ball, that means Kemba isn't touching it. If Kemba has the ball, that means Stephenson will be standing around pouting somewhere. Unless Stephenson suddenly transforms his game into being an off-ball shooter, I don't think this upgrades Charlotte's offense massively. Defensively it certainly makes them tougher (although we already saw in the playoffs that Lance cannot defend Beal), but Lance Stephenson is not the type of player who will improve your offense.


My assessment of the Stephenson signing is that it hurts Indy more than it helps Charlotte. So imo this is good for us.

I don't really see how Toronto is better than the 'Zards. Also, aren't we the favorites to win the division, giving us top 3? The race between Cleveland and Chicago for the Central is going to be interesting.

Illmatic12 wrote:I think it does.. 1 good game doesn't cancel out 5 mediocre to bad ones. 1/6 = 16.7%. He looked great in that one game, because that's who Lance Stephenson is. He'll look good in one game, and he'll look horrible and hold his team back in the next. I don't expect that to change about him.



Also, a Kemba-Stephenson backcourt is fairly redundant to me. If Stephenson has the ball, that means Kemba isn't touching it. If Kemba has the ball, that means Stephenson will be standing around pouting somewhere. Unless Stephenson suddenly transforms his game into being an off-ball shooter, I don't think this upgrades Charlotte's offense massively. Defensively it certainly makes them tougher (although we already saw in the playoffs that Lance cannot defend Beal), but Lance Stephenson is not the type of player who will improve your offense.


My assessment of the Stephenson signing is that it hurts Indy more than it helps Charlotte. So imo this is good for us.

I understand the logic but when you realize who Stephenson is likely replacing Gerald Henderson in the lineup (who is nothing short of terrible and a natural ball stopper himself) then it looks a lot better for the Hornets. And lets not act like Stephenson was a lead guard in Indy... he shared ballhandling duties with George Hill & Paul George, so sharing duties with Kemba Walker doesn't seem like an incredible stretch.

I don't think it significantly improves Charlotte but it's hard to see how they take a step back when they've just upgraded the weakest link in their starting lineup.

Why are people so high on the Bulls? People need to take a look at how impactful DJ was for them. Are we really expecting an efficient Rose coming back? I also think teams should take a page out of our book and defend the Bulls like we did. Let Noah beat you, (hint, he can't).

Cavs and TOR should be top 2, after that....it is pretty open. CHA could move up but they are still a mediocre 3 pt shooting team IMO.

Dat2U wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:I think it does.. 1 good game doesn't cancel out 5 mediocre to bad ones. 1/6 = 16.7%. He looked great in that one game, because that's who Lance Stephenson is. He'll look good in one game, and he'll look horrible and hold his team back in the next. I don't expect that to change about him.



Also, a Kemba-Stephenson backcourt is fairly redundant to me. If Stephenson has the ball, that means Kemba isn't touching it. If Kemba has the ball, that means Stephenson will be standing around pouting somewhere. Unless Stephenson suddenly transforms his game into being an off-ball shooter, I don't think this upgrades Charlotte's offense massively. Defensively it certainly makes them tougher (although we already saw in the playoffs that Lance cannot defend Beal), but Lance Stephenson is not the type of player who will improve your offense.


My assessment of the Stephenson signing is that it hurts Indy more than it helps Charlotte. So imo this is good for us.

I understand the logic but when you realize who Stephenson is likely replacing Gerald Henderson in the lineup (who is nothing short of terrible and a natural ball stopper himself) then it looks a lot better for the Hornets. And lets not act like Stephenson was a lead guard in Indy... he shared ballhandling duties with George Hill & Paul George, so sharing duties with Kemba Walker doesn't seem like an incredible stretch.

I don't think it significantly improves Charlotte but it's hard to see how they take a step back when they've just upgraded the weakest link in their starting lineup.

I never said Charlotte would take a step back, of course Stephenson should at least be better than Henderson. I'm saying I don't think this will put them on another tier.

And more importantly, it knocks Indy down to our level, along with the Hornets, Raptors, etc. So we should be more pleased about the fact that this weakens a contender. Going from Stephenson to CJ Miles is bad news for Indy, they may not even finish top 6 in the East.

nuposse04 wrote:Why are people so high on the Bulls? People need to take a look at how impactful DJ was for them. Are we really expecting an efficient Rose coming back? I also think teams should take a page out of our book and defend the Bulls like we did. Let Noah beat you, (hint, he can't).

Cavs and TOR should be top 2, after that....it is pretty open. CHA could move up but they are still a mediocre 3 pt shooting team IMO.

On paper they have the best team, but at the same time a lot could go wrong for them. As of 7/16/2014, this is how I would rank them

1. Bulls - if Rose is healthy, they are the team to beat. A lot riding on Gasol, he's an old 34. There's always health issues with Noah.

2. Wizards - not a homer pick, this is based on seeding more than anything. Remember the 3 division winners get 3 out of the top 4 spots. I think the Wiz take the Southeast division. Deeper team, an actual bench, potential to win 48-50 games.

3. Raptors - they bring back the same team, interesting case on whether they truly got better or not. All a year older, but have they peaked?

4. Cavs - the front court is weak, and they seem to have an abundance of wing players. If they trade for Love, then that puts them at the top, but if they go in with the team they have...they're good enough for a 4th seed and maybe a first round win but I don't see them going to the finals.

5. Hornets - they've improved by leaps and bounds. Should be a fun team to watch, but shooting is still a concern.

6. Pacers - they were always going to take a step back, but they've done nothing to improve the team. They are capped out the next two years so I don't see them improving any time soon.

7. Heat - they still have Bosh and Wade, but the surrounding pieces aren't that great. They'll make the playoffs just b/c the East is somewhat weak.

8. Hawks - they got rid of Joe Johnson but I don't see it with this team. Yeah, they got Horford, but that's enough to push them to 40-42 wins. It's another example of a team with a ton of cap room but can't spend it b/c they're not an attractive destination.

Wildcard: Bucks. I legit think they have a shot at the playoffs, they have a lot of talent, just need to figure out the pieces to the puzzle.

Illmatic12 wrote:

fishercob wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:That was literally his only good game in the series. Beal held him in check in the 5 other games.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/gamelog/_ ... stephenson

That may be so, but physically dominating and taking over a close out game doesn't really fit the "didn't really hurt us in the playoffs" narrative.

I think it does.. 1 good game doesn't cancel out 5 mediocre to bad ones. 1/6 = 16.7%. He looked great in that one game, because that's who Lance Stephenson is. He'll look good in one game, and he'll look horrible and hold his team back in the next. I don't expect that to change about him.



Also, a Kemba-Stephenson backcourt is fairly redundant to me. If Stephenson has the ball, that means Kemba isn't touching it. If Kemba has the ball, that means Stephenson will be standing around pouting somewhere. Unless Stephenson suddenly transforms his game into being an off-ball shooter, I don't think this upgrades Charlotte's offense massively. Defensively it certainly makes them tougher (although we already saw in the playoffs that Lance cannot defend Beal), but Lance Stephenson is not the type of player who will improve your offense.


My assessment of the Stephenson signing is that it hurts Indy more than it helps Charlotte. So imo this is good for us.

I agree. Not seeing Kembra and Lancing fitting together well personality wise. Lets see how that locker room meshes. Lets remember who we are talking about here. Its Lance. Dude is a little wacky.

Illmatic12 wrote:I never said Charlotte would take a step back, of course Stephenson should at least be better than Henderson. I'm saying I don't think this will put them on another tier.

And more importantly, it knocks Indy down to our level, along with the Hornets, Raptors, etc. So we should be more pleased about the fact that this weakens a contender. Going from Stephenson to CJ Miles is bad news for Indy, they may not even finish top 6 in the East.

I don't know. It's certainly different but I wonder how bad it really is. Indy was initially good because their chemistry was so good. As Stevenson's free agency approached he got a lot more ball dominant/selfish with his play which really disrupted chemistry and part of what sent Indy into a tailspin.

The funny thing is Stevenson isn't really a high usage player. Just the opposite, but he was the secondary ballhandler & facilitator so he had the ball a great deal of the time but wasn't necessarily creating shots for himself. C.J. Miles is a low usage player as well... but off-the-ball. C.J. Miles is no slouch and played pretty well last year. He's a spot up shooter that defends decently. Question is will it mean a larger role for Paul George or will ballhandling duties all fall on George Hill?

Without Stephenson, Indy's ceiling is lowered because Miles doesn't have the talent/upside that Stephenson did, but Miles replacing him may mean Indy plays better as a team... even if it sacrifices some upside.

I don't why everybody thinks Chicago or Cleveland will be top seed. Chicago still has a weak SG/SF position and until that changes they won't be the top. Rose is coming back that doesn't gurantee a 1 seed. Cleveland has Lebron but Varejao/Bennet/Thompson is nowhere near Bosh and they have to build chemistry. Irving is gonna have to play Defense which is never going to happen in his career. Lebron can't do everything for the Cleveland team. A brand new coach who's unproven on US soil it's hard to be a 1 seed with new players and a new coach in one year.

Dat2U wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:I never said Charlotte would take a step back, of course Stephenson should at least be better than Henderson. I'm saying I don't think this will put them on another tier.

And more importantly, it knocks Indy down to our level, along with the Hornets, Raptors, etc. So we should be more pleased about the fact that this weakens a contender. Going from Stephenson to CJ Miles is bad news for Indy, they may not even finish top 6 in the East.

I don't know. It's certainly different but I wonder how bad it really is. Indy was initially good because their chemistry was so good. As Stevenson's free agency approached he got a lot more ball dominant/selfish with his play which really disrupted chemistry and part of what sent Indy into a tailspin.

The funny thing is Stevenson isn't really a high usage player. Just the opposite, but he was the secondary ballhandler & facilitator so he had the ball a great deal of the time but wasn't necessarily creating shots for himself. C.J. Miles is a low usage player as well... but off-the-ball. C.J. Miles is no slouch and played pretty well last year. He's a spot up shooter that defends decently. Question is will it mean a larger role for Paul George or will ballhandling duties all fall on George Hill?

Without Stephenson, Indy's ceiling is lowered because Miles doesn't have the talent/upside that Stephenson did, but Miles replacing him may mean Indy plays better as a team... even if it sacrifices some upside.

Yeah it's certainly possible that Miles off-ball game (and personality, I've heard he's a high character guy) will be better for their chemistry, but now they don't have a single ballhandler to even get him the ball. Stephenson actually led the team in assists. Hill is an awful point guard, and George can't really handle the ball or pass well enough. That is going to be one ugly offense, and they were already one of the worst offenses last year.

And there's also the issue of Hibbert.. he was solid at the beginning of the season, then completely went into the tank. Based on how Hibbert played for the final 4-5 months of the season, if that's how he's gonna play moving forward Indy is dead in the water.

Dat2U wrote:

Illmatic12 wrote:I never said Charlotte would take a step back, of course Stephenson should at least be better than Henderson. I'm saying I don't think this will put them on another tier.

And more importantly, it knocks Indy down to our level, along with the Hornets, Raptors, etc. So we should be more pleased about the fact that this weakens a contender. Going from Stephenson to CJ Miles is bad news for Indy, they may not even finish top 6 in the East.

I don't know. It's certainly different but I wonder how bad it really is. Indy was initially good because their chemistry was so good. As Stevenson's free agency approached he got a lot more ball dominant/selfish with his play which really disrupted chemistry and part of what sent Indy into a tailspin.

The funny thing is Stevenson isn't really a high usage player. Just the opposite, but he was the secondary ballhandler & facilitator so he had the ball a great deal of the time but wasn't necessarily creating shots for himself. C.J. Miles is a low usage player as well... but off-the-ball. C.J. Miles is no slouch and played pretty well last year. He's a spot up shooter that defends decently. Question is will it mean a larger role for Paul George or will ballhandling duties all fall on George Hill?

Without Stephenson, Indy's ceiling is lowered because Miles doesn't have the talent/upside that Stephenson did, but Miles replacing him may mean Indy plays better as a team... even if it sacrifices some upside.

Good point about Paul George. He is primed to take another step and teams with a star SF, like he is capable of being, are usually very good teams. So as you pointed out, removing Lance for CJ Miles could actually be a team upgrade and a locker room upgrade.

C.J. Miles is a real nice pick up. I wanted him for the Wizards.

George Hill/CJ Watson
CJ Miles
Paul George/Chris Copeland
D West/Scola/Lavoy Allen
Hibbert/Ian Mahinmi

They can still pick up some guard depth.

Its going to take me filling out the other teams rosters like this before I can narrow it down. And I need to see their final configurations.

hands11 wrote:
The Wizards are making some nice moves, but other teams are getting better as well.

Could the Wizards make to the 3rd or 4th

Other teams are getting better. But ultimately the conference's top two teams from last year have taken steps back.
Miami doesn't need any explanation.
Indy hasn't upgraded the PG position like it wanted, still has a mammoth question mark at center with Hibbert, and lost Lance. The teams I'd put in front of us currently would be:

Chicago - they have plenty of "what if"s and uncertainties like Rose, but on paper they are formidable.
Cleveland - Lebron. All that really needs to be said.

And with them being in the same division they won't be seeded 1 & 2.

I like Toronto to win their division, and I like us to win ours (Miami and Charlotte will make the playoffs in my mind, but I like us to win the division). Seeding would depend on whether we can keep pace in the win column with Toronto.

We need health to be on our side, especially in the backcourt, but I could see us rising to one of those seeds by winning the division.