RealGM

Which team is going to succeed the preceding Heat and take the prestigious title of the worst record in the NBA? Runner-ups? Conference champions (of worst records)? Epic battle of epic proportions, get to posting.

Memphis Grizzlies will have the worst record IMO.

I'm betting on OKC.

the new sonics team, grizzlies and t wolves, have great young teams but they will be at the bottom.
in the east nets and pacers are rebuilding also so they don't care.

if i have to pick one of the 5 i think i go with the pacers, ford, dunleavy and granger are enough to lead a team?

TJ Ford alone makes the Pacers respectable because he can get in the lane almost at will and make the offensive players who can't create their own shot much better.

I actually like Memphis to be much improved. Conley and Mayo looked like a phenomenal backcourt duo in Summer League. Mayo is one of the older star rookies in spite of coming out as a freshman and you have to realize Conley should improve drastically from his rookie season when he was only a skinny 19-20-year old. Memphis' frontcourt is brutal, though. If they can deal from their glut of PG's they'll really be solid.

I think the Sacramento Kings will make a strong bid for worst record. They exhibited the desire required to earn the distinction when they traded Artest for prospects. Miller is supposedly on the block also. Udrih is pretty good for a backup but a starter? Their offense should consist of Kevin Martin dribbling a lot and trying to score 50 every night at the expense of any sort of efficiency. The Kings are the team to beat, followed closely by the Knicks.

I'm going to say Grizzles or Kings. Bucks are an enigma to me, I think the second half of last season showed that the Wolves are improving.

Memphis in my estimation. Not a single useful veteran player ( as a matter of fact Walker will hurt the young players more then help them develop , i can already see Mayo shoot Walker 4's ) and when i look at the coaching staff i don't see who makes up for the missing veteran pressence on the team.

I think Timberwolves will be at the bottom once again. Nets also are in line with the worst.

I would say the Pacers

Grizzlies
Kings
Wolves
Pacers
OKC

in no particular order.

Worst team in the league wins about 20 games (can be less--like Miami last year--or can be a few more). I have a hard time seeing Ron Artest making nearly a 20 game win difference for the Kings (38->20)--though, as the Kings need high draft picks, I wouldn't mind it so much.

My bet would be either Memphis or OKC--both are pretty much completely devoid of currently talented players past a single guy (Gay & Durant) while everyone else on the team is still trying to develop their game. Minnesota may contend for for the worst record if they trade Miller but with Miller & Big Al they have 2 quality players (more than OKC/Memphis RIGHT NOW).

My darkhorse would be the Knicks. Don't underestimate how bad an uptempo offense that relies on sharing the ball can fail when Randolph & Curry both see major minutes.

RapsGM wrote:I think Timberwolves will be at the bottom once again. Nets also are in line with the worst.

hey what do u mean the wolves will be at the bottom "again"? We've never finished with the worst record in recent years, show some respect to the wolves organization ok? research before you make statements!~ We werent even the worst of our division last year~ and I say the wolves make the playoff and the raps are grabbing the 1st overall pic next year with the worst record~psh..

memphis will be better than people think because oj mayo is most nba ready rookie besides beasley IMO. and with conley at the point and gay at the 3, thats alot of scoring options, there problem is downlow but with marc gasol coming over and warrick/darko getting a year older, they just might sneak up on a few teams.

worst record will definantely be OKC just because they left seattle so karma will hit there owner and he will realize he made a mistake moving that team, they will finish dead last in the league, but that will be very good for them because than they can take a big in next years draft such as blake griffin(who im not high on) or BJ Mullens or thabeet from Uconn, if they can add a big next year, they will be contenders for a title in about 4 years with a lineup of westbrook/durant/green/collison/mullens, maybe wilcox instead of collison.

rpa wrote:Worst team in the league wins about 20 games (can be less--like Miami last year--or can be a few more). I have a hard time seeing Ron Artest making nearly a 20 game win difference for the Kings (38->20)--though, as the Kings need high draft picks, I wouldn't mind it so much.

My bet would be either Memphis or OKC--both are pretty much completely devoid of currently talented players past a single guy (Gay & Durant) while everyone else on the team is still trying to develop their game. Minnesota may contend for for the worst record if they trade Miller but with Miller & Big Al they have 2 quality players (more than OKC/Memphis RIGHT NOW).

My darkhorse would be the Knicks. Don't underestimate how bad an uptempo offense that relies on sharing the ball can fail when Randolph & Curry both see major minutes.

That's an over-simplification. Artest didn't directly need to contribute 18 more wins. You're neglecting the fact that if a team isn't in the race they're going into tank mode. As you said yourself, a high draft pick is the consolation prize if you don't have a reasonable shot at the playoffs. The Kings were just close enough to the playoff race all last season to not have incentive to tank. They actually had a winning record in April while playing a brutal schedule. A few more losses by mid February to March and they may have went into a similar tailspin as the Clippers, who lost 26 out of their last 30.

Memphis will be significantly worse than most people think because they gift wrapped Mike Miller to the T'Wolves.

New Jersey looks pretty bad. A bunch of young guys, some mediocre vets, and Vince Carter most likely not caring.

Grizzlies will be bad. They have nice young talent, but it'll take some time to gel, and like was just mentioned, they traded away their best overall player last year, Mike Miller.

Bernman wrote:That's an over-simplification. Artest didn't directly need to contribute 18 more wins. You're neglecting the fact that if a team isn't in the race they're going into tank mode. As you said yourself, a high draft pick is the consolation prize if you don't have a reasonable shot at the playoffs. The Kings were just close enough to the playoff race all last season to not have incentive to tank.

They had ALL the incentive in 2007 and refused to do so--that's fact. 1 more loss and they move up at least 2 spots (33% chance at 2 spots, 33% chance at 3 spots, 33% chance at 4 spots) but instead they ended up beating a decent Clippers team (in LA) which sent the Warriors to the playoffs

They just aren't a franchise that tanks. The Maloofs have too much pride to do it (even though it may be better for the team in the long run)

I don't understand all these people saying the Pacers. We're not THAT bad. We missed the playoffs by 1 game last year with Jermaine Oneal and Jamaal Tinsley barely playing. Dunleavy and Granger had career years and look to improve. Then you add TJ Ford to that, and two rookies in Brandon Rush and Roy Hibbert who can help right away. Rasho and Jarrett Jack were solid pick ups. How in the world are we the worst team in the NBA?

OKC