RealGM

Many teams became better.

Atlanta Hawks: Much Better
Boston Celtics: Neutral
Brooklyn Nets: Much Better
Charlotte Hornets: Slightly Better
Chicago Bulls: Worse
Cleveland Cavaliers: Neutral
Dallas Mavericks: Better
Denver Nuggets: Worse
Detroit Pistons: Slightly Better
Golden State Warriors: Much Better
Houston Rockets: Worse
Indiana Pacers: Better
Los Angeles Clippers: Slightly Worse
Los Angeles Lakers: Better
Memphis Grizzlies: Better
Miami Heat: Better
Milwaukee Bucks: Neutral
Minnesota Timberwolves: Slightly Better
New Orleans Pelicans: Better
New York Knicks: Worse Slightly Better
OKC Thunder: Much Worse
Orlando Magic: Worse
Philadelphia 76ers: Slightly Worse
Phoenix Suns: Better
Portland Trailblazers: Much Better
Sacramento Kings: Neutral
San Antonio Spurs: Neutral
Toronto Raptors: Worse
Utah Jazz: Neutral Slightly Better
Washington Wizards: Better

Feel_the_Heat15 wrote:Many teams became better.

Atlanta Hawks: Much Better
Boston Celtics: Neutral
Brooklyn Nets: Much Better
Charlotte Hornets: Slightly Better
Chicago Bulls: Worse
Cleveland Cavaliers: Neutral
Dallas Mavericks: Better
Denver Nuggets: Worse
Detroit Pistons: Slightly Better
Golden State Warriors: Much Better
Houston Rockets: Worse
Indiana Pacers: Better
Los Angeles Clippers: Slightly Worse
Los Angeles Lakers: Better
Memphis Grizzlies: Better
Miami Heat: Better
Milwaukee Bucks: Neutral
Minnesota Timberwolves: Slightly Better
New Orleans Pelicans: Better
New York Knicks: Worse
OKC Thunder: Much Worse
Orlando Magic: Worse
Philadelphia 76ers: Slightly Worse
Phoenix Suns: Better
Portland Trailblazers: Much Better
Sacramento Kings: Neutral
San Antonio Spurs: Neutral
Toronto Raptors: Worse
Utah Jazz: Neutral
Washington Wizards: Better

Knicks got worse how? Not that I’m really complaining

How Knicks got worse lol

When Hayward played well for Boston, he definitely helped them. Problem is that most of the time he was either injured, or coming back from an injury, so he really didn't help them very much (especially in the playoffs). On the other hand, The C's addressed two of their biggest weakness this off-season by picking up a much tougher inside presence at Center with Triston Thompson, and adding much needed scoring off the bench with Nesmith. They also got a more reliable backup PG with Teague.
I don't think the Celtics hit a home-run this off-season, but I do think they got better (besides the fact that both Tatum and Brown should actually benefit from Haywards absence.)

Jazz upgraded their bench defense with Favors and Shaq Harrison replacing Tony Bradley, Ed Davis and Emanuel Mudiay. That makes them *slightly better* since they were blowing double-digit leads every time their bench unit came in for much of last year.

How did the Heat get better?

Sixers worse? How? They actually have NBA players on the roster now.

zimpy27 wrote:How did the Heat get better?

Internal improvement from Bam and Herro gives them a real argument for being better imo.


Also, I'd have Dallas closer to neutral than better. They probably are marginally better, but their improvements were mostly around the margins other than Richardson, but that came at the cost of their best shooter.

jstross wrote:Sixers worse? How? They actually have NBA players on the roster now.

Oh I think its pretty clear they downgraded in talent in the name of fit and getting their finances sorted moving forward. I don't think they will be worse, but there is definitely an argument.

Atlanta Hawks: Much Better
Boston Celtics: worse
Brooklyn Nets: Better
Charlotte Hornets: Slightly Better
Chicago Bulls: neutral
Cleveland Cavaliers: Neutral
Dallas Mavericks: neutral
Denver Nuggets: neutral
Detroit Pistons: worse
Golden State Warriors: Better
Houston Rockets: neutral
Indiana Pacers: neutral
Los Angeles Clippers: neutral
Los Angeles Lakers: neutral
Memphis Grizzlies: neutral
Miami Heat: neutral
Milwaukee Bucks: Neutral
Minnesota Timberwolves: Slightly Better
New Orleans Pelicans: Slightly Better
New York Knicks: neutral
OKC Thunder: Much Worse
Orlando Magic: neutral
Philadelphia 76ers: Slightly Better
Phoenix Suns: Slightly Better
Portland Trailblazers: Better
Sacramento Kings: neutral
San Antonio Spurs: Neutral
Toronto Raptors: Worse
Utah Jazz: Neutral
Washington Wizards: much Better

Texas Chuck wrote:

jstross wrote:Sixers worse? How? They actually have NBA players on the roster now.

Oh I think its pretty clear they downgraded in talent in the name of fit and getting their finances sorted moving forward. I don't think they will be worse, but there is definitely an argument.

Fit is a bog deal. Richardson looked awful and Horford was abysmal. They acquired 3 point shooting wich is key in the modern NBA. I'm still amazed they were able to get rid of Horford's contract while upgrading the 2 and depth at the same time let alone improved cap flexability. Wish they could've moved Harris, but that contract is borderline untradeable.

It's a zero-sum game.

If you improved less than most teams, then you got worse.

I'd say PHX get much better. Paul is exactly what they needed, they also signed Crowder, and Ayton's improvement is another factor to consider.

Texas Chuck wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:How did the Heat get better?

Internal improvement from Bam and Herro gives them a real argument for being better imo.


Also, I'd have Dallas closer to neutral than better. They probably are marginally better, but their improvements were mostly around the margins other than Richardson, but that came at the cost of their best shooter.

Agree on internal improvement but internal improvement doesn't seem to be a consideration for other teams in that list. Knicks have same young guys improving and added Toppin.

I don’t know how bucks can be considered neutral? Sure their future MAY have gotten worse depending on someone, but if you’re allowing for internal improvements for bam and herro as the team getting better then I think you have to assume Giannis may keep improving and ddv will...AND adding holiday for Bledsoe is a win for sure

zimpy27 wrote:

Texas Chuck wrote:

zimpy27 wrote:How did the Heat get better?

Internal improvement from Bam and Herro gives them a real argument for being better imo.


Also, I'd have Dallas closer to neutral than better. They probably are marginally better, but their improvements were mostly around the margins other than Richardson, but that came at the cost of their best shooter.

Agree on internal improvement but internal improvement doesn't seem to be a consideration for other teams in that list. Knicks have same young guys improving and added Toppin.

Yeah wasn't trying to speak to other teams, was just commenting on Miami--and adding my Dallas take. But yeah the Bucks will be worse in the RS, but better suited to the playoffs so I'd call them better. Knicks can't possibly be worse so I'd call them better. Pels will be worse, Jazz will be better, actually quite a few I disagree with the OP on.

How did okc get worse???


I kid.

Healthy Conley to start the season
Full season of Clarkson
Massive upgrade from Bradley to Favors
No more Mudiay in the rotation (Harrison likely won't be in it, either)
Bogdanovic recovered from a wrist injury he played with for a large portion of the season

I think Utah is better in the sense that (a) their regular season win percentage will be better, and (b) they are more prepared for certain matchups in the playoffs (Favors would have made a massive difference against Denver). Favors is severely underrated. He's a top 10-12 center, and he's our backup now, Utah is going to be dangerous. If LeBron slows down a bit, Utah is better than the Lakers. They might be better than the Clippers and Nuggets as-is, but any injuries, etc. could tip it in favor of the Jazz. Obviously we could also have injuries, but there is a path for Utah to make the finals that isn't completely inconceivable, and it is the first time we can say that since Stockton and Malone were here.

How can you say the Bulls got worse?

They got a new front office and new coach. That's a big improvement right there.

Yes the roster is mostly the same and the team isn't very good, but the two things I mentioned above, plus any improvements from the young players and a healthy year from Otto Porter Jr should help. I'm not expecting the playoffs but a slight improvement with a better outlook for the future is possible.

babyjax13 wrote:Healthy Conley to start the season
Full season of Clarkson
Massive upgrade from Bradley to Favors
No more Mudiay in the rotation (Harrison likely won't be in it, either)
Bogdanovic recovered from a wrist injury he played with for a large portion of the season

I think Utah is better in the sense that (a) their regular season win percentage will be better, and (b) they are more prepared for certain matchups in the playoffs (Favors would have made a massive difference against Denver). Favors is severely underrated. He's a top 10-12 center, and he's our backup now, Utah is going to be dangerous. If LeBron slows down a bit, Utah is better than the Lakers. They might be better than the Clippers and Nuggets as-is, but any injuries, etc. could tip it in favor of the Jazz. Obviously we could also have injuries, but there is a path for Utah to make the finals that isn't completely inconceivable, and it is the first time we can say that since Stockton and Malone were here.

The Jazz are better if they get the bubble version of Mitchell, who was shooting lights out and making good reads, but I think your appraisal might be a tad optimistic. I think the Jazz are the 3rd best team in the west, behind the LA teams, unless everything just clicks for Portland or Denver.

Portland has shooters everywhere with Dame, CJ, Trent Jr., Simons, Covington, and Melo. I think they'll actually miss Whiteside, but they could have nights where they just run over teams offensively.