Minnesota vs Milwaukee vs Seattle vs Memphis

Post #1 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:27 pm

I'm leaving Miami out of this one.

Ignore the fact that the Sonics are done in Seattle. From a purely basketball related standpoint, which team is in the best shape?

I think it's an interesting question and I'm curious to see some comments.

Milwaukee is the only team of the above four that didn't deal away their top talent or let them simply walk.

The Bucks probably have the most talent. The Sonics have Durant and picks. Minnesota has the best player. Memphis is sort of in the middle in terms of future contractual obligations, but they've got some good young players.

Post #2 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:28 pm

For the record, I'm voting for Seattle.

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #3 » by **Buck You** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:29 pm

Why are you leaving out Miami?

trwi7 · Post #4 » by **trwi7** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:32 pm

Seattle
Minnesota
Memphis
Milwaukee

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:33 pm

ReddBogutCharlieV wrote:Why are you leaving out Miami?

Because anyone with a brain would have voted for them.

xTitan · Post #6 » by **xTitan** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:35 pm

Seattle as well......i think ownership is huge, which is why Milwaukee and Memphis would be last.

http://www.last.fm/user/DPF55 · Post #7 » by **Buck You** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:41 pm

trwi7 wrote:Seattle
Minnesota
Memphis
Milwaukee

Agreed.

Because anyone with a brain would have voted for them.

I gotcha.

xTitan wrote:Seattle as well......i think ownership is huge, which is why Milwaukee and Memphis would be last.

Well I think Seattle is in the best position player wise but ownership wise I wouldn't say so.

rilamann · Post #8 » by **rilamann** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:43 pm

I'd list Minnesota #1 but I actually dont think the Bucks are in a completely terrible situation.Its a manageable situation provided you hire a competent GM.

You have 3 young players with good potential in Bogut,Yi & Sessions.

And you have 3 players with some value around the League Redd,Mo & CV.

Get a competent GM in here and give him full control and give him 2 years and this thing will get turned around.

How many draft picks does Seattle have? Depending on that I might rank them #2 behind the Wolves instead of the Bucks but im not a big fan of Durant.

I'd go,
Minnesota
Milwaukee
Seattle
Memphis

Nowak008 · Post #9 » by **Nowak008** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:48 pm

Are you including picks for the upcoming draft? Penciling Rose or Beasly in Minnesota or Memphis changes a lot.

Not including this draft.

1)Seattle- Durant and Green auto make them #1 for me. Add all the future picks and they have a good future.

4)Minnesota- Besides Jefferson there isn't a single player on the team I like at all so they are number 4 for me.

Memhpis vs Bucks

Conley> Yi
Miller>Redd
Gay=Bogut
Critten<Mo
Lowry=CV
Memphis contracts> Our contracts

And Memphis also has future picks from the Gasol trade.

1)Seattle
2)Memphis
3)Milwaukee
4)Minnesota

LISTEN2JAZZ · Post #10 » by **LISTEN2JAZZ** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:00 pm

Seattle is #1 because in addition to having a potential star player, they have a clear gameplan. That puts them at least a full year ahead of us; possibly more. I can almost guarantee that we are headed for yet another year of "rebuilding but also winning now."

Post #11 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:05 pm

Nowak008 wrote:Are you including picks for the upcoming draft? Penciling Rose or Beasly in Minnesota or Memphis changes a lot.

Yup.

Nowak008 · Post #12 » by **Nowak008** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:19 pm

DrugBust wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yup.

Well then we are probably last then.

We probably have the worst talent base in the league besides Charlotte or the Knicks.

dunhill · Post #13 » by **dunhill** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:45 pm

Not sure about seattle. Not sold on Durant. He'll be good but considering he plays well LBH stupid at times I don't know.

I'd probably have Memphis 1st then Minnesota.

Mainly because a) Darko is 22, and is decent and still developing and getting better. they have like 3 true point quards. One of which will turn out to be pretty good if not 2 of them allowing for trade bait. So IMO following natural pgrogression they're pretty set at SF, PG and C. More importantly they're all young and going to grow together. (Chemistry is vastly underrated). I also think Marc Iavaroni is doing a good job

Minnesota - One clear top dog and luckily its a big man. Need a true center to keep the heat off Jefferson. But they are in a better position because they are building from scratch. Telfair isn't too bad either and very young so htey may want to hold onto him. Coaching and Front Office is a big????

Seattle may have the best player right now but they have to fill more holes + move city. In the big man heavy West, who do they have? Just too many holes to rank them no1. But it's close beween Minny and Seattle, right Now Durant is pretty good bu would I swap for Jefferson one for one in the west? probably not.

Milwaukee - Ok it's not as bad because there are pieces but they don't have an identity. As it stands they're in the toughest spot because of little to no cap room. Chemistry sucks. Coaching and FO well, FO here should stand for "four letter word" - off. No direction at all

Edit: But on a happy note they're not as screwed as the Knicks

Max Green · Post #14 » by **Max Green** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:25 pm

Milwaukee

All we need is a good Coach and a PG and were straight. Besides were in the East, those other teams don't have a chance at making the playoffs in the next 3-5 years.

Nowak008 · Post #15 » by **Nowak008** » Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:39 pm

MVP4Champ wrote:Milwaukee

All we need is a good Coach and a PG and were straight. Besides were in the East, those other teams don't have a chance at making the playoffs in the next 3-5 years.

I disagree about just needing a coach and a PG. We are much further away then that.

The last part is a good point. The West is going to be loaded for such a long time that it is going to take a lot just to make the playoffs. Denver has 3 top 25 players in the league and they might not make it.

zizek · Post #16 » by **zizek** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:06 am

Memphis because they have so much quantity to work with. They have possible stars and surplus young low-priced players to trade.

I think Foye now that he's healthy is a building block for Minnesota.

heynow · Post #17 » by **heynow** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:33 am

DrugBust wrote:
The Bucks probably have the most talent.

Are you a NBA scout? I am not just picking on you but I read this comment at least three times a day around here.

What exactly are you basing this declarative statement on?
I simply don't see the evidence to support this statement.

This not a talented team and certain not more talented then any other team.
Talented teams, no matter how much tension there is, are this pathetic.

The talent level on the Bucks isn't significantly better then in Minnesota, Seattle, Memphis, LA Clippers or in Miami.

Post #18 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:48 am

heynow wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Are you a NBA scout? I am not just picking on you but I read this comment at least three times a day around here.

What exactly are you basing this declarative statement on?
I simply don't see the evidence to support this statement.

This not a talented team and certain not more talented then any other team.
Talented teams, no matter how much tension there is, are this pathetic.

The talent level on the Bucks isn't significantly better then in Minnesota, Seattle, Memphis, LA Clippers or in Miami.

I had a hard time following you here...you contradict yourself every other sentence.

Post #19 » by **paulpressey25** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:24 am

I think Heynow forget a word in is sentence there....he was trying to say that talented teams don't suck as bad as we have the past two years......even if said talented teams have a crappy coach and bad chemistry players.

I voted Seattle. They have a superstar that will be a top-five guy within 2-3 years. None of those other teams do. Plus they've got Green and draft picks.

I put Minnesota last. I'd take Bogut over Al Jefferson all day long. I'm the resident Al Jefferson doubter. I see him as the Michael Redd of PF/C's.

Post #20 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:31 am

paulpressey25 wrote:I think Heynow forget a word in is sentence there....he was trying to say that talented teams don't suck as bad as we have the past two years......even if said talented teams have a crappy coach and bad chemistry players.

I voted Seattle. They have a superstar that will be a top-five guy within 2-3 years. None of those other teams do. Plus they've got Green and draft picks.

I put Minnesota last. I'd take Bogut over Al Jefferson all day long. I'm the resident Al Jefferson doubter. I see him as the Michael Redd of PF/C's.

To be honest, I don't even know what you're trying to say.