PDA

View Full Version : Which team out of the Celtics, Knicks, LAL & Nets will become contenders first?



sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 01:17 AM
Brooklyn and NY are 2 of the biggest markets out there and the Lakers and Celtics are the two best teams in NBA history.

All 4 teams are in bad shape this year but which of these teams do you think will return to being contenders first?

The Celtics have the best GM out of this group and they have the most picks and a superstar in Rondo and some really good young role player in Avery Bradley. Youngsters like Sullinger are also nice to have.

Lakers have the worst HC out of this group. Their own pick this season looks to be very promising. They don't have their pick for next season and don't own any additional picks from any other teams either.

Nets have the worst GM out of this group. They also don't have a 1st rd pick in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Their only pick in the next 4 years is the 2015 one which can be swapped with the Hawks so they will get the worse one.

Knicks have one of the worst GMs in the NBA. They also don't have a 2014 or 2016 first round pick. Their only 1st rd pick in the next 3 years is the 2015 first rd pick.

*I did not include the details of cap space for each teams because I am unsure about it. If you know the details of each team's cap space, feel free to post it and I may edit the OP with your info.

Should be noted that cap space isn't everything as contending teams usually have to have a good HC, good GM and at least one very good superstar player which was drafted by the team in contention itself...Houston is the only contending team this year that's an exception to this.

Knicks fans, Lakers fans, Celtics fans and Nets fans...please try to be objective in your vote so you don't ruin the poll. Thanks in advance :)

KniCks4LiFe
02-17-2014, 01:21 AM
That's a tough one. I'm going to say Boston b/c their GM>>>>>>>>

todu82
02-17-2014, 01:26 AM
The Nets

goku
02-17-2014, 01:28 AM
Celtics they have picks and a great GM

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 01:29 AM
I agree with yall, I'm picking Boston as well. Its crazy to think that they still have Rondo who they can use to acquire even more assets.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 01:35 AM
Celtics:

They play in the ****** east
They aren't killed in the cap/picks for the next few years like the other 2 east choices

bholly
02-17-2014, 01:39 AM
I'm guessing LAL, BOS,.........,BKN~NYK.

Boston are in by far the best position right now in terms of the usual stuff, ie by virtue of having the best assets (ie Rondo and like a million picks). They're in a great rebuilding position. That would put them in the lead by far, except for that no matter what your assets are, it's still tough to get that top level guy that will get you there, especially if they hold onto Rondo. LAL are in a pretty awful situation for most teams, but they have upcoming cap room, all the money in the world, and that prestige and market that means they just might be able to sign a star and jumpstart the process. It's not going to be nearly as automatic or easy as their fans think, and they're unlikely to get the kind of guy (or combination of guys) that actually gets them to a title, but you can build something of a contender that way. That's the only reason they're ahead of Boston - they have the big FA advantage, while Boston's path still depends on a lot of luck like everyone else.

BKN and NYK are in a whole different category. They're at the point in the process where it's going to take a few painful years just to get to the bottom, let alone start on the way back up again. It also seems like neither owner or GM has the patience to actually do it in the way that gives them a chance, so even if they got on the right path they might just jump back off again.
On paper NYK could be ahead if they had competent management - they could try and get a return for Melo, their pick situation isn't quite as bad as BKN, and they have one less year of immovable cap hell. They should be in a better position. But Brooklyn have the advantage of having one potential future piece in Lopez (while NYK only have future role players), and you get the feeling they're less likely to stick for too long with what doesn't work (I'm talking Billy King here). So it's hard to say. My instinct was to put Brooklyn ahead of NYK, but if you factor in where NYK could be with one or two good decisions, I think you have to put them about equal.

Overall it isn't good for any of them, though. If you see the average NBA building and busting process as a wave up and down, Boston are pretty much at the downturn at the bottom, ready to get some pieces and head on back up, LAL are still just getting down to that point but still have a trump card that could bring them back up the other side more quickly than usual, while NYK and BKN are still way up their previous upswing, only the problem is their upswings weren't high enough, they can't get down, and even when they do they might have to oscillate a little while the backlog of awful clears out.

MTar786
02-17-2014, 01:48 AM
wait.. we (lakers) don't have a 1st round pick in the draft? why are we tanking then? can someone confirm this

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 01:51 AM
wait.. we (lakers) don't have a 1st round pick in the draft? why are we tanking then? can someone confirm this

Read the OP again but this time, do it very slowly and carefully. It will all make sense, I promise.

koreancabbage
02-17-2014, 01:53 AM
Boston.

The two New York teams are gonna have to wait or sell off all their assets first before they move on from the mess they are in now.

I would go in this order:

Boston
LA
NYK
Brooklyn

brooklyn might be a playoff contender this year but they sure aren't a championship contender. Boston's ready to start the rebuild now. LA is next. NYK and Brooklyn have some big contracts that aren't helping them now they need to get rid of or wait for them to end. but thats just from a surface perspective.

Cal827
02-17-2014, 02:09 AM
1. Boston. The team has quite a few young pieces who could develop into good players. They have Rondo, who can either facilitate the development of the young pieces, or in worst case scenario, deal out for more pieces. They also have a lot of future draft picks, including a bunch from the Brooklyn Nets, who don't exactly look like they are in a good condition for the future.

2. Lakers. If there was a year where a usual contending team would want things to go wrong, the Lakers might have picked the best one. In between their two unprotected first rounders going to Phoenix, they seem bound to be able to grab a prospect with 4-5 star potential in this draft (depending how the lottery goes for them). They also pretty much have everybody but Kobe come off the books for their team this offseason, giving the desired destination the ability to try and woo some players in the next couple years to play in the big city (E.g. Lebron, Bosh, Love, Iriving, etc).

3. New York. They might be losing their pick this season to the Nuggets from the Carmelo trade, and still owe the Nuggets (and Raptors) a few more, but the team would have a bunch of huge contracts coming off the books after next year. Just like the Lakers, they are in a basketball market, and could attempt to go after some future free agents. In my personal opinion (don't kill me Knick fans), I think they could vastly improve their situation by trading Carmelo. They could likely get a few prospects back or recover some first round picks or possibly both. It's better than nothing. I'm aware that he said that he might stay at a discount, but he also kinda contradicted himself in the same conversation. Regardless of what happens here, they are still in a much better position than the last team.








30. Nets. They have a bunch of old players with huge contracts. Joe Johnson and Deron Williams (Two players that appear to be on the decline, I have no idea WTF happened to Deron), take up roughly 40-45 million of the team's Salary, all they way up to the 2016-2017 season. What doesn't help is that they Owe the Hawks and the Celtics a bunch of unprotected picks for bringing in Pierce, KG, and Johnson, or have given the other team the ability to swap. I feel bad for Net Fans, who are used to seeing their high picks end with someone else (Kanter, Liliard) for pieces that are supposed to be what leads them to greatness (Williams, Wallace, Johnson, Pierce, Garnett). Now, they are likely to see at least another 1 or two lottery picks go to either their division rivals, or Atlanta. They have no space to go acquire a key FA, or a pick to grab a gem that might fall to them. While as Holly mentioned that they do potentially have a better piece than anything that the Knicks have in Brook Lopez, there are some serious issues with that as well. Brook has been injury prone, and a Big Man with bad foot/leg injuries is always horrifying. We all have seen the unfortunate end that Amar'e seems to be heading to. It's hard to tell whether or not that he'll be able to stay healthy for a season. Their best chance might be for Prokorov to bribe most of that team into retirement or something.

curtcocaine
02-17-2014, 02:09 AM
Lakers have the worst HC out of this group. Their own pick this season looks to be very promising. They don't have their pick for next season and don't own any additional picks from any other teams either.*

QUOTE=sunsfan88;27986848]Read the OP again but this time, do it very slowly and carefully. It will all make sense, I promise.[/QUOTE]

I think you may need to followyour own advice...sad when you dont no what you typed youself lol

Kaner
02-17-2014, 02:13 AM
Boston they're young and have a great front office some picks plus whatever they get for Rondo. They also seem more focused on going through with a rebuild.

Kashmir13579
02-17-2014, 02:39 AM
Neither of the NY teams.. I'm leaning towards Boston, but you never know with Lakers.. They could pull some BS trade out of there *** and get good, quick.

RipCity32
02-17-2014, 02:41 AM
Lakers for sure

Boston is not going to attract star players for a while. I don't care how many picks they got. Lots of teams stay in the lottery for years even when they get the Irving's and Davis's let alone picks outside of the top 5. Just because you got picks doesn't mean your going to build the next OKC. Unless Boston drafts a star, Those picks probably won't make them any better than a Denver Nuggets squad.

Lakers can get a good player in the draft this year and pretty much sign stars the second they get back cap space. Nets and Knicks are just ran like crap.

bholly
02-17-2014, 02:44 AM
wait.. we (lakers) don't have a 1st round pick in the draft? why are we tanking then? can someone confirm this


Read the OP again but this time, do it very slowly and carefully. It will all make sense, I promise.


I think you may need to followyour own advice...sad when you dont no what you typed youself lol

??

The OP says their pick this year looks promising. What's the problem?

Kashmir13579
02-17-2014, 02:45 AM
Celtics:

They play in the ****** east
They aren't killed in the cap/picks for the next few years like the other 2 east choices
I don't see how playing in the east helps anyone become a contender. If you are a legitimate championship contender, the quality of play transcends conferences/divisions..

bholly
02-17-2014, 02:47 AM
I'm not sure I'd say the Lakers have the worst coach, though - Woodson probably takes that crown.

Plus a bad head coach isn't a big deal unless you're stuck with him somehow, and definitely isn't a big deal this far from contention for each of these teams. It's a big benefit for Boston to have a great young HC, but for the others it's not necessarily a huge problem - you can always go out and find someone who isn't awful.

bholly
02-17-2014, 02:55 AM
Celtics:

They play in the ****** east
They aren't killed in the cap/picks for the next few years like the other 2 east choices


I don't see how playing in the east helps anyone become a contender. If you are a legitimate championship contender, the quality of play transcends conferences/divisions..

Yeah. Plus, in the timelines we're talking about for these teams to become contenders (3 or 4 year turnarounds at best for LAL and BOS, probably longer for the other two), we don't know what the conference makeup will be. With the East teams as bad as they are right now, a little draft luck could have it full of superstars in that time. Especially with a decent chunk of the West's elite guys (Dirk, TD, Kobe) nearing retirement.

bholly
02-17-2014, 02:56 AM
Neither of the NY teams.. I'm leaning towards Boston, but you never know with Lakers.. They could pull some BS trade out of there *** and get good, quick.

They don't even have the assets for a Gasol-from-Memphis type trade now. It'll be FA if it's anything.

lamzoka
02-17-2014, 02:57 AM
1-Boston


2-Lakers
3-Knicks


























4-Brooklyn

Duncan = Donkey
02-17-2014, 03:02 AM
Boston
Lakers



Nets/Knicks

mdm692
02-17-2014, 03:05 AM
Boston. LA has cap space and I can see them being back in the playoffs but I just don't think they'll get back to the promise land unless they can land a top 15 player in the NBA.

bholly
02-17-2014, 03:08 AM
I'd love to hear a real argument from anyone who voted NYK or BKN, but I'm guessing there isn't one.


2-Lakers
3-Knicks


How are the Knicks anywhere near the Lakers? Worse pick situation, worse cap situation, much much worse management situation, nothing like the same history of attracting elite FAs. It just isn't close.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 03:19 AM
Lakers for sure

Boston is not going to attract star players for a while. I don't care how many picks they got. Lots of teams stay in the lottery for years even when they get the Irving's and Davis's let alone picks outside of the top 5. Just because you got picks doesn't mean your going to build the next OKC. Unless Boston drafts a star, Those picks probably won't make them any better than a Denver Nuggets squad.

Lakers can get a good player in the draft this year and pretty much sign stars the second they get back cap space. Nets and Knicks are just ran like crap.
The difference is that those teams don't have a GM as good as Ainge.

Kyben36
02-17-2014, 03:22 AM
Lakers become pretenders, first, Kobe + first round pick + 1 Allstar doesnt make them a contender IMO. not with Dantoni, and not with kobes age and the young guy not being ready not mixing.

Celtics have tons of peices, and will improve, becoming a contender first.

goku
02-17-2014, 03:23 AM
Lakers for sure

Boston is not going to attract star players for a while. I don't care how many picks they got. Lots of teams stay in the lottery for years even when they get the Irving's and Davis's let alone picks outside of the top 5. Just because you got picks doesn't mean your going to build the next OKC. Unless Boston drafts a star, Those picks probably won't make them any better than a Denver Nuggets squad.

Lakers can get a good player in the draft this year and pretty much sign stars the second they get back cap space. Nets and Knicks are just ran like crap.



Boston is one of the most successful and winning franchises in sports history they have a GM who will make smart decision and a young promising coach if the Celtics draft a young star keep rondo or they will be attractive or if they trade him for assets they will be attractive

TheMightyHumph
02-17-2014, 03:32 AM
As a Net fan, and having seen hope in their games this month. I am hoping Nets will be a contender this year.

Yuk it up guys, but no back-to-back games in the playoffs.

jsthornton7
02-17-2014, 03:33 AM
As things stand right now the Celtics have by far the most chance to be competitive. They can package picks and above average players for a superstar and have a chance at a top-5 pick this year (I think Ainge has set his sights on Jabari Parker).

The Lakers really depend on signing the right free agents as they don't really have many assets to trade other than their pick this year and in 2016. Even then they can't trade them until they make the pick. Head coach isn't really a concern to me. D'Antoni will be fired when the time is right, if not his contract expires in 1 years time anyways.

P&GRealist
02-17-2014, 03:36 AM
The Lakers are going to go through a 20 yr drought just like the Celtics did after their 86 title.

And I fkn hate it!

5ass
02-17-2014, 03:48 AM
Celtics

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 03:49 AM
I don't see how playing in the east helps anyone become a contender. If you are a legitimate championship contender, the quality of play transcends conferences/divisions..

1st step in becoming a contender is making the playoffs...

They have multiple picks, Rondo is in his 20's, and they have more young talent than the other teams listed.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 03:50 AM
Yeah. Plus, in the timelines we're talking about for these teams to become contenders (3 or 4 year turnarounds at best for LAL and BOS, probably longer for the other two), we don't know what the conference makeup will be. With the East teams as bad as they are right now, a little draft luck could have it full of superstars in that time. Especially with a decent chunk of the West's elite guys (Dirk, TD, Kobe) nearing retirement.

The east has been the ***** conference for 25 years. I seriously don't expect anything on that front to change....

Kevj77
02-17-2014, 05:25 AM
Lakers do have some serious cap space coming. Celtics and Knicks will too in 2015. Joe Johnson and Deron tie up too much of the Nets cap space for the next couple years to be players in free agency. Brooklyn also is the 7th seed in the east the Lakers, Celtics and Knicks all will be in the lottery. Lakers traded their 2015 first round pick for Nash, but it is top 5 protected.

The honest answer is the team that gets a luckiest with ping pong balls and can attract free agents the best will rebuild first that means it won't be Brooklyn.

TDE
02-17-2014, 07:01 AM
Lakers, IMHO they were a playoff team this year 7-8 seed if Healthy, If they can get a legit star & a top 3 pick, then watch out!

Im guessing at worse it will take till 2016.

bostncelts34
02-17-2014, 09:21 AM
Boston and LA IMO are closest to being contenders again.

Boston is in much better shape picks/cap/gm/coach wise and still have Rondo to either keep or trade for more assets. The problem being... someone please tell me the last time the celtics signed a big name FA? cause i cant remember. A market like LA is no problem for signing stars. The celtics will have to be very good at drafting and or trading picks/young talent to build their team again. Bostons biggest advantage however...is playing in the east.


Nets...Knicks...your screwed...sorry.

thenaj17
02-17-2014, 10:35 AM
??

The OP says their pick this year looks promising. What's the problem?

The Lakers do have a 2015 pick as long as it's top 5 i believe (conceivable with the current talent/lack of)

2-ONE-5
02-17-2014, 11:42 AM
no love for Philly as a major market? no surpise seeing who the OP is

bholly
02-17-2014, 11:53 AM
The Lakers do have a 2015 pick as long as it's top 5 i believe (conceivable with the current talent/lack of)

Well I think the OP and I both assumed that "wait.. we (lakers) don't have a 1st round pick in the draft? why are we tanking then?" was referring to this draft, otherwise that's a super weird and unclear way of saying it.



no love for Philly as a major market? no surpise seeing who the OP is

We'll we aren't nearly as big in terms of coverage so that could make sense. But really I took it to be "which of these poorly positioned teams will become contenders first" or even "which of these recent 'contenders' (at least to their fans in some cases) will be contenders again first", and Philly don't fit either. I assumed the reason we weren't there is because then it isn't an interesting question - Philly are clearly in the best rebuilding position. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

LongIslandIcedZ
02-17-2014, 12:15 PM
There is a reason the Lakers and Celtics have like a million championships. I will always go with those two over the Knicks and the Nets.

The Knicks are way too up in the air right now. If they can lure a top FA to play with Melo, than they can get easily get back into the upper tier of the east again. That's a big 'if' though, and no one knows how its going to play out. Celtics and the Lakers are too well run to not go with them.

celtNYpatsHeels
02-17-2014, 12:28 PM
Its either going to be the Lakers or Celtics....

Lakers have cap room and will attract more free agents. Celtics have picks and assets to build through drafting and trades.

Im going to say the Celtics strictly because they are in the East.

2-ONE-5
02-17-2014, 12:32 PM
Well I think the OP and I both assumed that "wait.. we (lakers) don't have a 1st round pick in the draft? why are we tanking then?" was referring to this draft, otherwise that's a super weird and unclear way of saying it.




We'll we aren't nearly as big in terms of coverage so that could make sense. But really I took it to be "which of these poorly positioned teams will become contenders first" or even "which of these recent 'contenders' (at least to their fans in some cases) will be contenders again first", and Philly don't fit either. I assumed the reason we weren't there is because then it isn't an interesting question - Philly are clearly in the best rebuilding position. Maybe I'm wrong, though.

we are. just wanted to take a shot at the OP since he loves taking em at us.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 01:16 PM
I don't see how playing in the east helps anyone become a contender. If you are a legitimate championship contender, the quality of play transcends conferences/divisions..

The Lakers not only have to rebuild, they have to do it in a conference where 50 wins barely gives you the chance to be a sacrificial lamb in round 1.

Boston easily.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 01:17 PM
Yeah. Plus, in the timelines we're talking about for these teams to become contenders (3 or 4 year turnarounds at best for LAL and BOS, probably longer for the other two), we don't know what the conference makeup will be. With the East teams as bad as they are right now, a little draft luck could have it full of superstars in that time. Especially with a decent chunk of the West's elite guys (Dirk, TD, Kobe) nearing retirement.

I will stick with the previous 25 years of history on this. West will be better for a long time. The better GM's are clearly out west. Have been since most of this site was crapping their diapers.

bholly
02-17-2014, 01:28 PM
The Lakers not only have to rebuild, they have to do it in a conference where 50 wins barely gives you the chance to be a sacrificial lamb in round 1.

Boston easily.

Could you expand on how getting into the playoffs in the non-contending years makes you become a contender faster? I still don't get it. Are you saying Boston getting into the playoffs would give them an advantage in FA over LAL or something? Or is it some sort of argument about playoff losses developing the team? I just don't get what you're getting at, and you keep just restating the premise as if it's some sort of conclusion, without actually giving a reason as to why it makes a difference.

bholly
02-17-2014, 01:34 PM
I will stick with the previous 25 years of history on this. West will be better for a long time. The better GM's are clearly out west. Have been since most of this site was crapping their diapers.

Two comments:

1) The West has been better overall (ie top to bottom) for a long time, sure, but we're specifically talking about contenders here, and the East have done just fine at the top over that 25 year time period. The West are more solid top to bottom, while the East are more top heavy - I'm not sure it follows just from that that one has more contenders.

2) If the evidence of the past 25 years does turn out to be that the West produces more contenders, why does it follow that the team in the East are more likely to become contenders? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Doesn't whatever gave the West all that historical advantage also apply to the Lakers? "The West produces far more contenders and therefore it must be easier to produce a contender in the East" doesn't really follow.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 02:28 PM
no love for Philly as a major market? no surpise seeing who the OP is

Um Philly doesn't belong with Los Angeles, Boston, New York and Brooklyn in terms of legacy and/or market size.

If I included Philly then I would have to include Orlando, Toronto, PHX, Denver etc. I might as well just put every non contending team in the NBA on the poll then.


Life isn't all about the 76ers...I'm gonna make your sig even worse just for saying that.

jerellh528
02-17-2014, 02:31 PM
Could you expand on how getting into the playoffs in the non-contending years makes you become a contender faster? I still don't get it. Are you saying Boston getting into the playoffs would give them an advantage in FA over LAL or something? Or is it some sort of argument about playoff losses developing the team? I just don't get what you're getting at, and you keep just restating the premise as if it's some sort of conclusion, without actually giving a reason as to why it makes a difference.

Seriously? It's not rocket science. Since they're in the east they have a much easier road to the finals considering the level of play throughout the regular season and playoffs is much lower. That makes it easier for them to CONTEND for a title. Considering the west is a damn brawl all season long and a war in the playoffs, that would make it harder for the lakers to build a contender first. Got it? For example just look at the current playoff seedings and ask yourself "if I was trying to be a contender first, which confrence would I rather be in?"

B'sCeltsPatsSox
02-17-2014, 02:43 PM
Um Philly doesn't belong with Los Angeles, Boston, New York and Brooklyn in terms of legacy and/or market size.

If I included Philly then I would have to include Orlando, Toronto, PHX, Denver etc. I might as well just put every non contending team in the NBA on the poll then.


Life isn't all about the 76ers...I'm gonna make your sig even worse just for saying that.

Philly certainly has a better legacy than Brooklyn and probably New York for that matter too.

bholly
02-17-2014, 02:47 PM
Seriously? It's not rocket science. Since they're in the east they have a much easier road to the finals considering the level of play throughout the regular season and playoffs is much lower. That makes it easier for them to CONTEND for a title. Considering the west is a damn brawl all season long and a war in the playoffs, that would make it harder for the lakers to build a contender first. Got it? For example just look at the current playoff seedings and ask yourself "if I was trying to be a contender first, which confrence would I rather be in?"

You really take into account the difficulty of first and second round matchups when deciding if someone's a contender? The measure of a contender is whether they could beat the best teams in the NBA, not how hard their matchups are going to be. If you think "well, they could maybe beat San Antonio in the WCF and Indy in the finals, but I just don't know how they're going to top Portland in the second round" then they aren't really a contender. Right now we have the biggest overall East/West playoffs disparity in years, and I don't see a single West team that would suddenly become a contender because they switched conferences, nor a single East contender who would stop being one if they switched. Do you?
Even Golden State, who are the closest I can see to that - if they could beat Indy, Miami, and whoever is the best the West have to offer, then they can also win from the West. They'd have one easier round in the East, so they'd be more likely to win, but that doesn't suddenly make them capable of winning.

If you're a contender you're good enough that you could beat the best teams in the league. Being in a tougher conference doesn't change whether or not you can do that.

Boston could put together a team that becomes a third seed in an Eastern conference like we have now, but unless they're also good enough to get into that top group in the West then they still aren't a contender - the third seed itself is irrelevant to that.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 02:52 PM
Philly certainly has a better legacy than Brooklyn and probably New York for that matter too.

Yea that's why I said "and/or market size".

Brooklyn and NY are bigger markets than Philly. Like I said, I just picked the 4 most prominent franchises that are down right now on the poll.

When was the last time that the Lakers, Celtics, Knicks and Nets were all bad in the same season?

abe_froman
02-17-2014, 02:53 PM
Um Philly doesn't belong with Los Angeles, Boston, New York and Brooklyn in terms of legacy and/or market size.
.
how so? i get not being on same level of legacy of boston or lakers,but they easily beat out both nets and knicks in terms of legacy

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 03:01 PM
Rajon Rondo could leave the Boston Celtics in unrestricted free agency in 2015, but he could possibly be acquired now via trade.

Danny Ainge's asking price for Rondo are two unprotected first round picks, according to Sam Smith of NBA.com.

Teams cannot trade first round picks in consecutive seasons.
If this goes down then Boston would be in even better shape.

jerellh528
02-17-2014, 03:23 PM
You really take into account the difficulty of first and second round matchups when deciding if someone's a contender? The measure of a contender is whether they could beat the best teams in the NBA, not how hard their matchups are going to be. If you think "well, they could maybe beat San Antonio in the WCF and Indy in the finals, but I just don't know how they're going to top Portland in the second round" then they aren't really a contender. Right now we have the biggest overall East/West playoffs disparity in years, and I don't see a single West team that would suddenly become a contender because they switched conferences, nor a single East contender who would stop being one if they switched. Do you?
Even Golden State, who are the closest I can see to that - if they could beat Indy, Miami, and whoever is the best the West have to offer, then they can also win from the West. They'd have one easier round in the East, so they'd be more likely to win, but that doesn't suddenly make them capable of winning.

If you're a contender you're good enough that you could beat the best teams in the league. Being in a tougher conference doesn't change whether or not you can do that.

Boston could put together a team that becomes a third seed in an Eastern conference like we have now, but unless they're also good enough to get into that top group in the West then they still aren't a contender - the third seed itself is irrelevant to that.

Basketball is all about matchups. Of course I put plenty of stock into what teams they might play In The first and second rounds. Let's take the clippers and the raptors for example, who would you rather go against? There are 4 teams in the east currently with losing records that are in the playoffs if they started today. The #3 seed in the east would need a 3 game swing to even sniff the 8 seed in the west. It's a harder road is all I'm saying. The chances of an east team sneaking in to the Ecf is much higher than a west one. And confrence finals IMO is contending.

Pierzynski4Prez
02-17-2014, 03:32 PM
Boston or LA. Can't see how anyone would choose other.

bholly
02-17-2014, 03:40 PM
Basketball is all about matchups. Of course I put plenty of stock into what teams they might play In The first and second rounds. Let's take the clippers and the raptors for example, who would you rather go against? There are 4 teams in the east currently with losing records that are in the playoffs if they started today. The #3 seed in the east would need a 3 game swing to even sniff the 8 seed in the west. It's a harder road is all I'm saying. The chances of an east team sneaking in to the Ecf is much higher than a west one. And confrence finals IMO is contending.

Well then your opinion is wrong. Contending means being in the frame for the championship. Toronto could sneak into the ECF just like this hypothetical future Boston team, but they aren't contenders.

albertajaysfan
02-17-2014, 03:42 PM
Basketball is all about matchups. Of course I put plenty of stock into what teams they might play In The first and second rounds. Let's take the clippers and the raptors for example, who would you rather go against? There are 4 teams in the east currently with losing records that are in the playoffs if they started today. The #3 seed in the east would need a 3 game swing to even sniff the 8 seed in the west. It's a harder road is all I'm saying. The chances of an east team sneaking in to the Ecf is much higher than a west one. And confrence finals IMO is contending.

Strongly disagree on that one.

I think there is a greater chance a surprise team gets to the WCF because the overall level of play is greater in that conference.

Are you actually suggesting a team like the Raptors has a higher chance of getting to the conference finals over say Dallas or Memphis or Golden State?

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 03:47 PM
Two comments:

1) The West has been better overall (ie top to bottom) for a long time, sure, but we're specifically talking about contenders here, and the East have done just fine at the top over that 25 year time period. The West are more solid top to bottom, while the East are more top heavy - I'm not sure it follows just from that that one has more contenders.

2) If the evidence of the past 25 years does turn out to be that the West produces more contenders, why does it follow that the team in the East are more likely to become contenders? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Doesn't whatever gave the West all that historical advantage also apply to the Lakers? "The West produces far more contenders and therefore it must be easier to produce a contender in the East" doesn't really follow.

1- Elite is elite, its just much easier to become elite and pile up wins in the East

2- Elite is elite. The east is very top heavy right now, and was in the 90s as well. They snuck in a few chips here and there as lesser teams in the 2000's. Point is, its easier to put yourself in the position to compete for a chip in the east, and Boston has more money, draft picks, and young talent than either NY team, and the Lakers have to deal with 5-6 teams that are here to stay as really good out west.

Kashmir13579
02-17-2014, 03:55 PM
1st step in becoming a contender is making the playoffs...

They have multiple picks, Rondo is in his 20's, and they have more young talent than the other teams listed.

yeah.. and a contender will make the playoffs regardless of where they play, because they are a CONTENDER.

Kashmir13579
02-17-2014, 04:02 PM
Seriously? It's not rocket science. Since they're in the east they have a much easier road to the finals considering the level of play throughout the regular season and playoffs is much lower. That makes it easier for them to CONTEND for a title. Considering the west is a damn brawl all season long and a war in the playoffs, that would make it harder for the lakers to build a contender first. Got it? For example just look at the current playoff seedings and ask yourself "if I was trying to be a contender first, which confrence would I rather be in?"

At the end of the day the best still have to beat the best. Teams in the east like ATL have racked up plenty of wins over the years, doesn't have **** to do with contending.

2-ONE-5
02-17-2014, 04:27 PM
Um Philly doesn't belong with Los Angeles, Boston, New York and Brooklyn in terms of legacy and/or market size.

If I included Philly then I would have to include Orlando, Toronto, PHX, Denver etc. I might as well just put every non contending team in the NBA on the poll then.


Life isn't all about the 76ers...I'm gonna make your sig even worse just for saying that.

um Philly is 4th largest market while Boston is 10th genious. You act like the Sixers arent a Storied franchise either.

4-5-4 son come on now

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 04:56 PM
yeah.. and a contender will make the playoffs regardless of where they play, because they are a CONTENDER.

piling up wins is easier in the east. There is a good chance that every east champ post Jordan era would have failed to reach the finals if they were in the west.

Besides, Boston is far ahead of the game in rebuild mode. They have better young talent, more cap space, more picks, and Rondo as either a building block or great trade asset. The other two east teams are screwed for the near future in that regard, and the Lakers are about to enter total rebuild in 30 games.

Furthermore, out of the 4 teams listed, Boston is the only one with management who has already constructed a championship team.

albertajaysfan
02-17-2014, 05:09 PM
um Philly is 4th largest market while Boston is 10th genious. You act like the Sixers arent a Storied franchise either.

4-5-4 son come on now

Incorrect. Fourth largest market belongs to Toronto.

He choose the teams in the top market. Brooklyn and New York along with the two most storied franchises Boston and LALakers. Stop trying to make it about how people hate the Sixers. You are feeding the stereotype that exists about Philly sports fans. Allow this thread to be about what it was created for. If you want a thread with the Sixers included in the discussion, go start one.

2-ONE-5
02-17-2014, 05:17 PM
Incorrect. Fourth largest market belongs to Toronto.

He choose the teams in the top market. Brooklyn and New York along with the two most storied franchises Boston and LALakers. Stop trying to make it about how people hate the Sixers. You are feeding the stereotype that exists about Philly sports fans. Allow this thread to be about what it was created for. If you want a thread with the Sixers included in the discussion, go start one.

calm down. OP loves taking shots at the Sixers when he can so i took one back, get over it its not that serious. He burried himself with his response to the shot.

Cracka2HI!
02-17-2014, 05:18 PM
Clearly the Celtics. The Celtics are a year into a rebuilding process. The other teams haven't even realized they need to start rebuilding yet. The Lakers would easily be next. They will have cap space and should get a top 10 pick. The Knicks still have a superstar in his prime but I don't see them as contenders. They will likely try to contend as long as they have Melo. Brooklyn has what I consider to be by far the worst situation in the league. They should make the playoffs this year and possibly next. They have 2 fragile superstars. One may no longer be a superstar at all and the other is currently not playing. They have no picks to speak of and will likely be the laughing stock of the league giving away lottery picks every year.

east fb knicks
02-17-2014, 05:19 PM
it's to early to ask this question it all depends on 2015 if melo resigns for cheap and we get a big three then we good all of the other teams are stuck in their position for years to come espeacially the nets

Bruno
02-17-2014, 05:27 PM
Lakers.

the franchise is fresh off a 3 billion dollar time warner deal and will enter the 2014 off-season 40 million dollars beneath the luxury tax (it'll be 50 million if Nash retires).


As of all star weekend we have the 5th worst record in the NBA, tied with Sacramento for the fourth worst record (but we've beaten them twice in the regular season).

If the lottery happened today we would have an 8.8% chance of getting the top pick, a 9.7% chance of getting the 2nd pick, a 10.7% chance of getting the 3rd pick, 0% chance of getting the 4th pick, a 26% chance of getting the 5th pick, a 36% chance of getting the 6th pick, a 8.4% chance of getting the 7th pick, a 0.4% chance of getting the 8th pick, with the guarantee of not getting a pick any lower than 8th.

We have a 29.2% chance of finishing with one of the top three picks if we finish 5th worst in the league. if that doesn't happen, its almost a statistical guarantee that we finish with the 5th or 6th pick (90+% odds we get a pick at 6th or higher).

It's nice to know that the lowest we could go as it stands today is 8th. it's also interesting to note that we are just as likely to finish with the 1st pick (8.8% odds) as we are the 7th (8.4% odds)

combine the available space with the value of this pick and I think its gotta be the Lakers, although things are looking interesting in Boston as well. franchise track record suggests that LAL will have an easier time attracting a big free agent.

Kobe might be overpaid relative to the value he will bring next season, but if he comes back after a long off-season I think he can remain a top ten-fifteen player in the league as a 36 year old. Add all that knowledge and remaining ability to 40 million in cap space and a top five pick in the most loaded draft since 2003 and things aren't as bad as they seem.

Bruno
02-17-2014, 05:33 PM
piling up wins is easier in the east. There is a good chance that every east champ post Jordan era would have failed to reach the finals if they were in the west.

Besides, Boston is far ahead of the game in rebuild mode. They have better young talent, more cap space, more picks, and Rondo as either a building block or great trade asset. The other two east teams are screwed for the near future in that regard, and the Lakers are about to enter total rebuild in 30 games.

Furthermore, out of the 4 teams listed, Boston is the only one with management who has already constructed a championship team.
Jim and Mitch deserve some credit here.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 05:35 PM
Jim and Mitch deserve some credit here.

I don't have the same trust in the new Laker management for some reason.

Besides, like I said, the Celtics are well ahead of anyone else here on the rebuild. The one thing that will help the Lakers, or could anyways, is some young star might still believe Kobe has elite game left in him and join in 2015, along with whatever they can get this summer. Outside of that, I don't see how this answer isn't the Celtics.

jerellh528
02-17-2014, 05:38 PM
I don't have the same trust in the new Laker management for some reason.

Besides, like I said, the Celtics are well ahead of anyone else here on the rebuild. The one thing that will help the Lakers, or could anyways, is some young star might still believe Kobe has elite game left in him and join in 2015, along with whatever they can get this summer. Outside of that, I don't see how this answer isn't the Celtics.

That young star is kevin love. Lol jk

3RDASYSTEM
02-17-2014, 05:54 PM
I'm guessing LAL, BOS,.........,BKN~NYK.

Boston are in by far the best position right now in terms of the usual stuff, ie by virtue of having the best assets (ie Rondo and like a million picks). They're in a great rebuilding position. That would put them in the lead by far, except for that no matter what your assets are, it's still tough to get that top level guy that will get you there, especially if they hold onto Rondo. LAL are in a pretty awful situation for most teams, but they have upcoming cap room, all the money in the world, and that prestige and market that means they just might be able to sign a star and jumpstart the process. It's not going to be nearly as automatic or easy as their fans think, and they're unlikely to get the kind of guy (or combination of guys) that actually gets them to a title, but you can build something of a contender that way. That's the only reason they're ahead of Boston - they have the big FA advantage, while Boston's path still depends on a lot of luck like everyone else.

BKN and NYK are in a whole different category. They're at the point in the process where it's going to take a few painful years just to get to the bottom, let alone start on the way back up again. It also seems like neither owner or GM has the patience to actually do it in the way that gives them a chance, so even if they got on the right path they might just jump back off again.
On paper NYK could be ahead if they had competent management - they could try and get a return for Melo, their pick situation isn't quite as bad as BKN, and they have one less year of immovable cap hell. They should be in a better position. But Brooklyn have the advantage of having one potential future piece in Lopez (while NYK only have future role players), and you get the feeling they're less likely to stick for too long with what doesn't work (I'm talking Billy King here). So it's hard to say. My instinct was to put Brooklyn ahead of NYK, but if you factor in where NYK could be with one or two good decisions, I think you have to put them about equal.

Overall it isn't good for any of them, though. If you see the average NBA building and busting process as a wave up and down, Boston are pretty much at the downturn at the bottom, ready to get some pieces and head on back up, LAL are still just getting down to that point but still have a trump card that could bring them back up the other side more quickly than usual, while NYK and BKN are still way up their previous upswing, only the problem is their upswings weren't high enough, they can't get down, and even when they do they might have to oscillate a little while the backlog of awful clears out.

one more injury and LOPEZ will basically be role player, overpaid at that

Sly Guy
02-17-2014, 06:03 PM
lakers. Of that group, they have the deepest pockets and a 'reasonable' front office.

Hawkeye15
02-17-2014, 06:10 PM
That young star is kevin love. Lol jk

it could be, who knows. But what will Kobe be in 2015? Love will need more help than an old Kobe with one foot out the door to retirement.

Rockice_8
02-17-2014, 06:20 PM
Well since two teams (LA and BOS) basically gave up on this season and are building for the future you would guess they have head start on the future but only one of those teams has a chance this year and thats the Nets. The East is wide open. Not one team in the east is unbeatable.

bholly
02-17-2014, 06:35 PM
1- Elite is elite, its just much easier to become elite and pile up wins in the East

2- Elite is elite. The east is very top heavy right now, and was in the 90s as well. They snuck in a few chips here and there as lesser teams in the 2000's. Point is, its easier to put yourself in the position to compete for a chip in the east, and Boston has more money, draft picks, and young talent than either NY team, and the Lakers have to deal with 5-6 teams that are here to stay as really good out west.

We're talking about being contenders, not piling up wins. We aren't even talking about teams who have a long shot chance of getting lucky in the playoffs and going on a run. We're talking about being in the elite group of teams who you go into the playoffs thinking that they're good enough to win the whole thing.

So, serious question: do you think there are teams that would be legit contenders (ie in the conversation for winning the finals) in the East but not in the West? If so, who?

Keep in mind that even in the East, in this most pathetic of years, you still have to get through both Indy and Miami and then the best of the West to win it. I just don't believe any of the West non-contenders would be in that conversation as having a real chance. Top 3 seed? Sure. Outside chance at getting lucky and going on a run? Why not. Legitimate contenders? Nope. But I'd love to hear who it is that makes you disagree with that.

Tony_Starks
02-17-2014, 07:27 PM
Hate to burst people's bubble but nobody is trying to go to Boston. You get drafted by Boston or get traded there, you don't voluntarily go there.....

bholly
02-17-2014, 07:33 PM
^Whose bubble are you bursting? I haven't read that carefully, but I haven't seen anybody say Boston are going to sign anyone. They're all talking about all Boston's picks. If anything they've made the point that LAL are more likely to sign people.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 08:53 PM
^Whose bubble are you bursting? I haven't read that carefully, but I haven't seen anybody say Boston are going to sign anyone. They're all talking about all Boston's picks. If anything they've made the point that LAL are more likely to sign people.

Honestly though, other than Shaq, which star FA has the Lakers signed through free agency in the past 30 or 40 years?

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 08:55 PM
Incorrect. Fourth largest market belongs to Toronto.

He choose the teams in the top market. Brooklyn and New York along with the two most storied franchises Boston and LALakers. Stop trying to make it about how people hate the Sixers. You are feeding the stereotype that exists about Philly sports fans. Allow this thread to be about what it was created for. If you want a thread with the Sixers included in the discussion, go start one.
All that guy does is try to make everything about Philly.

I'm gonna make him pay for it though by April.

bholly
02-17-2014, 09:06 PM
Honestly though, other than Shaq, which star FA has the Lakers signed through free agency in the past 30 or 40 years?

I don't disagree - I've made the same argument plenty of times - but once you factor in guys who've pushed for a trade there I don't think there's much denying it's a desirable location. Especially once you factor in all the stuff that makes it that way (rather than just the history of guys acting that way) - money, history, prestige, weather, bright lights, etc.

Tony_Starks
02-17-2014, 09:15 PM
Honestly though, other than Shaq, which star FA has the Lakers signed through free agency in the past 30 or 40 years?

When you're a contender for the better part of 3 decades you don't have to always sign big stars. You can add complimentary pieces like the MWP's of the world.

But to answer your question the Lakers have not been without a superstar for about 30 years, I don't see that changing anytime soon....

Kevj77
02-17-2014, 09:19 PM
Honestly though, other than Shaq, which star FA has the Lakers signed through free agency in the past 30 or 40 years?This sounds so uninformed and bias. When have the Lakers had cap room to sign a max type player other than when they signed Shaq. They dumped cap space Miami Heat style for Shaq and have been over the cap ever since.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 09:53 PM
When you're a contender for the better part of 3 decades you don't have to always sign big stars. You can add complimentary pieces like the MWP's of the world.

But to answer your question the Lakers have not been without a superstar for about 30 years, I don't see that changing anytime soon....
Well they don't have a superstar right now...unless you consider the corpses of Nash, Gasol and Kobe as superstars.

This sounds so uninformed and bias. When have the Lakers had cap room to sign a max type player other than when they signed Shaq. They dumped cap space Miami Heat style for Shaq and have been over the cap ever since.
No your definitely right about the cap space but people act like the Lakers have this great tradition of signing star FAs but there's no proof of that.

Sure Los Angeles may be the best city in America for athletes and such but there's been no indication that stars are just dying to sign with the Lakers.

In the NBA today, it doesn't matter what city the team is in...all that matters is if you can team up to play together on a good team.

Tony_Starks
02-17-2014, 10:17 PM
Well they don't have a superstar right now...unless you consider the corpses of Nash, Gasol and Kobe as superstars.

No your definitely right about the cap space but people act like the Lakers have this great tradition of signing star FAs but there's no proof of that.

Sure Los Angeles may be the best city in America for athletes and such but there's been no indication that stars are just dying to sign with the Lakers.

In the NBA today, it doesn't matter what city the team is in...all that matters is if you can team up to play together on a good team.


Yeah I'm sure they're are stars dying to team up and go to Utah. Or maybe Milwaukee. Lol

Dude do you think LA, Chi Town, and New York keeping superstars is some sort of weird coincidence?

2-ONE-5
02-17-2014, 10:22 PM
lol yea the city matters to NBA players a lot. it shouldn't but it does and always will when it comes to free agency

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 10:35 PM
Yeah I'm sure they're are stars dying to team up and go to Utah. Or maybe Milwaukee. Lol

Dude do you think LA, Chi Town, and New York keeping superstars is some sort of weird coincidence?
You must have short memory cause the last time the Lakers had a superstar in his prime, he fled LA as fast as he could. And if I remember correctly, this happened just last summer.

I understand your overall point though but no, those teams are good and drafted well so they kept their superstars. LAL drafted Kobe (they told Charlotte to draft him for them), Chicago drafted Jordan...if the Bucks or Jazz had drafted Kobe or Jordan then yes I believe that there is a good possibility that players would have stayed and would have attracted more FAs to those teams and won titles as well.

Look at the Blazers for example. Portland isn't a hot team and yet star players have already told LMA and Lillard that they want to go play in Portland with them. You think if the Blazers didn't draft LMA or Lillard that these players would wanna play with them? Hell no.

http://www.csnnw.com/blazers/couple-all-stars-tell-aldridge-they-want-play-him-lillard-portland

Not accusing you of doing this but a lot of Lakers fan say "Well we are the Lakers so of course all the star players are gonna get on their knees for their chance to sign with us" and I'm sorry but that's just the dumbest and most idiotic thing ever.

If the Lakers aren't winning, and they don't have any superstars in their prime who they drafted themselves on the roster, I do not believe star FAs will be lining up to sign with the Lakers. And not just the Lakers, this holds true for every team in the NBA imo.

jsthornton7
02-17-2014, 10:39 PM
Sure Los Angeles may be the best city in America for athletes and such but there's been no indication that stars are just dying to sign with the Lakers.

If Kyrie Irving leaves CLE his #1 destination is LAL. Kevin Love's #1 destination is LAL.

lol, please
02-17-2014, 10:49 PM
Brooklyn and NY are 2 of the biggest markets out there and the Lakers and Celtics are the two best teams in NBA history.

All 4 teams are in bad shape this year but which of these teams do you think will return to being contenders first?

The Celtics have the best GM out of this group and they have the most picks and a superstar in Rondo and some really good young role player in Avery Bradley. Youngsters like Sullinger are also nice to have.

Lakers have the worst HC out of this group. Their own pick this season looks to be very promising. They don't have their pick for next season and don't own any additional picks from any other teams either.

Nets have the worst GM out of this group. They also don't have a 1st rd pick in 2014, 2016, 2017 and 2018. Their only pick in the next 4 years is the 2015 one which can be swapped with the Hawks so they will get the worse one.

Knicks have one of the worst GMs in the NBA. They also don't have a 2014 or 2016 first round pick. Their only 1st rd pick in the next 3 years is the 2015 first rd pick.

*I did not include the details of cap space for each teams because I am unsure about it. If you know the details of each team's cap space, feel free to post it and I may edit the OP with your info.

Should be noted that cap space isn't everything as contending teams usually have to have a good HC, good GM and at least one very good superstar player which was drafted by the team in contention itself...Houston is the only contending team this year that's an exception to this.

Knicks fans, Lakers fans, Celtics fans and Nets fans...please try to be objective in your vote so you don't ruin the poll. Thanks in advance :)

Unlike the Lakers, the Celtics cannot stay away from contention.

B'sCeltsPatsSox
02-17-2014, 10:53 PM
If Kyrie Irving leaves CLE his #1 destination is LAL. Kevin Love's #1 destination is LAL.

You know this?

BTW, Kyrie will probably be under the Cavs control until 2019. Any team who offers him in RFA they'll match.

sunsfan88
02-17-2014, 10:57 PM
You know this?

BTW, Kyrie will probably be under the Cavs control until 2019. Any team who offers him in RFA they'll match.

Duh, just like they all knew that Dwight would stay in LA the moment that they acquired him.

DoMeFavors
02-17-2014, 11:03 PM
Nets are only team in playoffs so they are the only contender for a title, so they are the first out of these 4 to be contenders. Plus they are going to get better at deadline, King deserves a lot more credit then he gets.

Tony_Starks
02-17-2014, 11:27 PM
Duh, just like they all knew that Dwight would stay in LA the moment that they acquired him.

What did the Lakers do to you man? Your Laker hating seems unfounded since most Laker fans forgot the Suns even had a team...

jsthornton7
02-17-2014, 11:36 PM
You know this?

BTW, Kyrie will probably be under the Cavs control until 2019. Any team who offers him in RFA they'll match.

Kyrie told his good friend Klay Thompson that if he left CLE, LAL is his #1 destination.

If Kyrie really doesn't want to be there he can accept the offer sheet next season and become a UFA in 2016. We'll find out then. What I said was "if" he leaves CLE, meaning if he had the option to play for any other team... Then LAL is is #1 destination.

Los Angeles has historically attracted superstar players. From Wilt, to Kareem, to Shaq, to Pau. Just because one of them was stupid enough to leave doesn't mean we won't continue to be a premiere destination.

jsthornton7
02-17-2014, 11:46 PM
What did the Lakers do to you man? Your Laker hating seems unfounded since most Laker fans forgot the Suns even had a team...

Some Suns fans here on PSD are very bitter towards the Lakers. They view us as a rival for some reason.

sunsfan88
02-18-2014, 12:09 AM
What did the Lakers do to you man? Your Laker hating seems unfounded since most Laker fans forgot the Suns even had a team...

I do hate the Lakers, I'll admit that. But I don't hate the Lakers that much at the moment, however, I absolutely hate when people say that "Oh we are the Lakers, of course everyone will sign with us".

And that not just the Lakers, there have been Knicks fans and other fanbases who I discuss with when they say stupid s**t like that.

Even if it was a Suns fans who was making ridiculous comments like that, I would be questioning them as well.

sunsfan88
02-18-2014, 12:14 AM
Some Suns fans here on PSD are very bitter towards the Lakers. They view us as a rival for some reason.
I don't. I laugh when people say there is a rivalry between the Lakers and the Suns. 16 championships to 0 isn't a rivalry. Lakers have had more recent success than Phoenix as well.

I know a lot of Suns fans hate the Lakers but that doesn't mean there is a rivalry.

I live close to LA and whenever I mention at "rivalry" between the Lakers and Suns, Lakers fans tell me "that's cute" and I agree with them.

The Suns biggest rivals are the Spurs. Even though they have more titles (4-0), its a lot closer than the difference between us and the Lakers and there's more bad blood (literally and figuratively) between both teams.

2-ONE-5
02-18-2014, 11:05 AM
Some Suns fans here on PSD are very bitter towards the Lakers. They view us as a rival for some reason.

theyre bitter towards everyone and have become some of the biggest homers around here

FYL_McVeezy
02-18-2014, 11:11 AM
I vote for the Lakers......only because of their franchise history. They never stay down for too long...

Aust
02-18-2014, 04:31 PM
Doesn't mean much to have the "worst HC out of this group" if he gets the boot after this season.

sunsfan88
02-21-2014, 05:39 AM
theyre bitter towards everyone and have become some of the biggest homers around here
Will make you pay for that in your sig. Your gonna be changing that "Sixers strong" soon..maybe I'll include "Suns strong" for ya or something too...;)

2-ONE-5
02-21-2014, 01:24 PM
lol ok man. remember you have a 2 game lead over a Grizz team that is better than you