Since I am opposed to the Ariza trade I probably give it lower than a C. Every other move was pretty much a given.
I'd rate us as a C+/B- You need to net a major difference maker for little cost (such as giving up a key roster guy) to get an A. That would be Miami (A++), maybe Chicago (A-). Lakers all but sat on their hands, so they get a pure C. Cleveland, Minnesota, and Toronto enjoy nice fat F's. Phoenix and Charlotte get D's.
I guess I am generous. I think our offseason was extremely solid, somewhere in the B+ to A- range. I do think alot of people arent seeing the big picture however. I imagine alot of the people saying C, probably said the same thing in 2007 when we drafted Brooks, Landry. Things turned out great for Miami, but it was close to a disaster when Wade was flirting with Chicago. I'd rather not operate our franchise like that.
a c?! a b i can understand, but a c is negative, we didn't have a BAD offseason, it just wasnt a great one, we resigned key pieces, we added some solid players, i thought we had a very subtle, but quality offseason
Yea, C+/B- sounds about right for us. We didn't do anything big , positive or negative. Just little minor upgrades.
A: Major positive improvement (Miami) B: Positive improvement (Knicks) C: Neutral, no significant change either direction (Lakers) D: Step backward (Phoenix) F: Major step back (Clev, Tor) The Rockets moved out their starting SF and brought in several back ups. They improved, but it's not like they added Bosh or Melo. No new starters. Holding on to your own free agents is good, but you can't claim high marks for holding steady. B-
The question that is causing confusion is: 1. Are you grading the changes the team made? 2. Or are you grading the overall quality of the team at the end of the offseason? People who are doing the first would give the Lakers, for example, a C. People that are grading thinking the second would give them an A. Since they were the world champions, it makes sense that they wouldn't make really big changes. In our case, it's even more complicated because how do you grade Yao coming back? That's a huge change from last year, but not something we actually did. If you ignore Yao, then using the first criteria, we're in the C range. Using the second, we're in the A range, ± a + or -. Even the nba.com grading confused these two criteria, that's why some of their grades were so stupid.
Resigning your key FAs isn't standing pat. Standing pat is letting them walk away. Also we signed Brad Miller and drafted PP. I don't see why we're a "C".
call me an idiot call me stupid say whatever, but i am getting tired of hearing health and yao in the same sentence.
Not alot of teams seems to know how to do those things correctly.Imo your not giving Morey enough credit. How many teams can trade a player after giving them a huge contract the year before? Not many.
A D+ is fair. -retained lowry with a bad contract -retained scola with an OK contract that could look bad after a couple years of wear and tear -signed brad miller to an albatross contract -traded Trevor Ariza for a player who is probably worse but has a much better contract
And those teams that can not do those things correctly deserve a D or a F. Wow I really wish some of the people on here were my college professors. You guys grade way too easily. As already stated by myself and others Miami deserves the A, Chicago gets a B+. THose teams added key pieces which SIGNIFICANTLY improved their team. We did what we were suppose to so we are not quite up there which puts us at a C. Now if we were able to land Bosh or Carmelo then of course we get our A. As of right now with the moves or lack of moves we have made we had just a average off season.
