Not sure why this shouldn't be inherently intuitive. Obviously, the better team you are, the more you're going to be affected by a new top 1 or 2 team. If your chances to win a championship drops from 40 to 30%, you lose more than a team whose championship chances drop from 10 to 7%. The title is the "Biggest offseason losers", after all.
Because the Nets did the same thing the Knicks did effectively by flushing their franchise for a few years (partly out of necessity and partly out of hope) and didn't even end up with the "nice try!" consolation prize of Randolph/Stoudemire/Felton etc. The fact that they hyped themselves to no end ("Brooklyn! Jay Z! Russian Guy!") and actually got people to buy it, when the reality is that they are a lame duck 12-win team playing in an empty stadium in Newark probably doesn't help them much either, in the scale of embarrassment.
Lakers were intentionally included just to produce extra hits on the article. No one would be interested in reading a piece telling us the obvious. The Wolves misfired all over the place? Who knew?! But they'll spark curiosity by leading the article with the Lakers, even if it is a gigantic stretch. The Lakers would have done more damage than good if they broke up their core. More than other defending champions, swapping out any major starters would mean that the new guys would have to go through the Triangle Offense learning curve - something that takes as long to as rebounding from microfracture surgery. I'm a little surprised that the Nets, Cavs, and Raps haven't made a move to take a guy like AK47, Okafor, Peja, Curry, or Zach Randolph for a TE in exchange for a first rounder. I'd include Brand, but that is probably the most immovable contract in a very long time. I can't decide on Arenas - he could rebound and be an overpaid but producing star. The rest of those guys are either expiring or can give you some decent contribution. If you've struck out and are left with a miserable team and a big TE or cap space....why not make a deal and pick up another first rounder for your trouble? Evan
Of course, they held onto their draft picks and get Favors now, and whomever they can the next two years, unlike the Nix. They also hold onto their cap flexibility. That's alot smarter than signing a second tier non-franchise guy to big money. The Nets aren't going anywhere until they get to Brooklyn. If they were there now, they would have signed James. I'm absolutely sure of that. Ratner's legal back and forth killed their opportunity this summer. No way are they a 12-win team next year. I'll be surprised if they aren't at least 30-win team. I'll be equally surprised if the Knicks grab 45+ wins. Evan
This is ridiculous. The Lakers are an offseason winner with no question about it. The won the finals and they still improved. Adding Blake and Barnes for that kinda money is awesome. ESPN doesn't know what they are talking about. ESPN has jumped on the Heat bandwagon and will never fall off.
You could at least disagree with his argument. He acknowledges that they are an improved team over last year. Evidently, that's not what this analysis is about. Its about how they've positioned themselves for success in the upcoming season, and beyond. On that basis, he's saying that while before Miami signed LeBron they were clear-cut favorites, now not so much. [rquoter]Had James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh aligned themselves in any other combination with any other team, that wouldn't be the case. Thus, L.A. lost ground this summer, even though, in narrower terms, it won with the additions of Barnes and Blake. [/rquoter]
Their 2nd round picks (Devin Ebanks, 43rd & Derrick Caracter, 58th) are looking like astute decisions as well. Caracter is being consistently touted as a probable steal.
Miami won't even make the Finals. The hype surrounding them is at these staggeringly stupid levels only because no one has seen them (as a FULL TEAM) play yet. Look at the holes on their roster. They're not going to beat the Lakers this year even if they do get that far. Only shot is if Gasol or Bryant are out w/ injury. Eric Spoelstra vs Phil Jackson to boot. Their time will come after they've managed to address 1 and 5 with an MLE or two (if the MLE still exists after the dust settles).
Farmar was often 3rd stringer by coach's decision. Blake is indeed better and he didn't have to try very hard for the title, either. Jordan gave LA a waterbug look at the 1, but he (and Fish/Brown) don't have traditional 1 skills. One of the Lakers' most vexing problems, usually talked about at least once a season by Jackson, is their PGs' inability to feed the post consistently enough -- a team whose major strength is in the bigman rotation, when healthy. When Kobe is the best passing guard on your team, you know you need to upgrade. Post entry passing is the number one reason he was signed. Whatever else he brings are cherries.
We wouldn't know until how everything play out for those teams that signed the big name free agents this off season. I would think teams that did not make any moves but was really not that good last year are the losers. Southwest Division -------------------- Houston-improved with Yao and adding Patterson and Miller. resigned Scola and Lowry. Dallas - Improved, resigned Haywood, traded for chandler San Antonio-signed Tiago Splitter New Orleans-stand pact Memphis-resigned Gay, added Tony Allen. definitely improved teams that are losers are: Cleveland, Minnesota, Clippers, New Jersey, New York, Charlotte, Toronto in my opinion
IMHO the reasoning is stupid because the heat forming up affects every other team in the league. Everybody's chances of winning a ring went down. In the Lakers' case, they went from favorite to co-favorite. Why the hell does that make them a bigger loser than, say Boston? Boston went from Finals contender to Eastern conference semifinalist. Or what about the Nuggets or Spurs? Their chances of winning a ring just went up in smoke. I'd say Boston paying tons of lux tax without a chance of winning a ring is a much bigger loser than the co-favorite to win the championship this year. And the even more stupid part is the Lakers upgraded itself this season. So your previous champion just became stronger but they ended up a "loser"? If the Lakers became the biggest loser what the hell do you call every other team not named Miami Heat?
The problem here is why will the Lakers have a bigger drop in percentage than, say the Grizzlies? The Lakers have the stronger team, and thus they will be affected less. Let's say the chances of winning a championship is one whole pie, and the Lakers being the bully of the playground managed to grab more pie than anyone else. Now another bully in the form of the Miami heat comes up and starts taking the pie from everybody else. What will happen is the Grizzlies, being very weak, will end up giving majority of their pie to the insanely strong Heat. On the other hand the Lakers, being a bully of equal magnitude, will only be slightly affected by a bully appearing as strong as he is. Its the same thing here. The stronger team you are, the less you are affected by another strong team coming up. In fact if a team less strong than you appears, you hardly become affected at all. If the NBA decided to turn Vegas as the 31st team full of rookies and scrubs, which team do you think will be affected in their wins/losses more? The Lakers? Or another crap team like Raptors, Bobcats and Grizz?
Durv, this argument only holds water if every other team apart from the Lakers have a 0% chance to win a ring, meaning whatever outcome happens they won't win anyway so they aren't anymore affected by outside events. Again, from a plain viewpoint, I fail to see how the Lakers who have manage to improve their roster turned out to be a bigger loser than say the Spurs, whose biggest FA acquisition is the resigning of Jefferson, or the Celtics, who has an injured Perkins and their big three growing older by one more year. It doesn't make sense. At all.
