The future potential of 2020's projected playoff teams from worst to best:

[trojanfan12]

Nothing really to disagree with... We both agree that with only AD secured, limited picks and assets in stock (if not only Kuzma) and ...11 empty roster spots of yet unknown potential, the Lakers are placed correct where they are in the future power rankings and if a new development surfaces, then a revision is in order...

Yes, but it's not just the Lakers. Every team with only a few "secured options" is going to have unknown future potential.

The Lakers are not correctly placed because their future would be better described as unknown, rather than poor. The reason is because, while they don't have AD signed beyond this season, they do have him now, the team is playing well, has great chemistry and the Lakers can offer him more money than anyone else.

Imo, a poor future would be a team with an average/below average roster and no way of adding a player who can make a difference.

The Lakers when they had Dwight Howard who gave no indication that he wanted to come back and who most fans didn't want back by the end of the season, old Steve Nash with his broken back and old Kobe and his blown out Achilles would have been a much better example of a team with a poor future than this current Lakers team.

We also agree that "crystal ball predictions" cannot be valued or be taken into account for any team...

No, actually we don't. Imo, "crystal ball future" has to be part of any analysis of a teams future because, as with the case of the Lakers and AD, they have the advantage when it comes to maintaining the services of their top players.

 

[buckalis]

Yes, but it's not just the Lakers. Every team with only a few "secured options" is going to have unknown future potential.

The Lakers are not correctly placed because their future would be better described as unknown, rather than poor. The reason is because, while they don't have AD signed beyond this season, they do have him now, the team is playing well, has great chemistry and the Lakers can offer him more money than anyone else.

Imo, a poor future would be a team with an average/below average roster and no way of adding a player who can make a difference.

The Lakers when they had Dwight Howard who gave no indication that he wanted to come back and who most fans didn't want back by the end of the season, old Steve Nash with his broken back and old Kobe and his blown out Achilles would have been a much better example of a team with a poor future than this current Lakers team.



No, actually we don't. Imo, "crystal ball future" has to be part of any analysis of a teams future because, as with the case of the Lakers and AD, they have the advantage when it comes to maintaining the services of their top players.

It's not what science says should be taken into account when it is a team that is under examination... AD is just one person who has nothing secured around him and therefore not even the style of the future Lakers game can be predicted... furthermore so their success potential. IMO, you can't say "future is good for a team, when... there is no team yet!

The teams I value as having "good" potential have at least this... the "team" factor... and then there is the reasoning to back M.O. up, which is then what directs the ranking I come up with.

 

[Wamu]

It's not what science says should be taken into account when it is a team that is under examination... AD is just one person who has nothing secured around him and therefore not even the style of the future Lakers game can be predicted... furthermore so their success potential. IMO, you can't say "future is good for a team, when... there is no team yet!

The teams I value as having "good" potential have at least this... the "team" factor... and then there is the reasoning to back M.O. up, which is then what directs the ranking I come up with.

"The teams I value as having "good" potential"

Oh just shut the fuck up! You have no clue what you're talking about, as usual. In comment # 403 you said the Pistons future potential is "promising". Could you be more full of shit? The answer- of course.

 

[tlance]

Yes, but it's not just the Lakers. Every team with only a few "secured options" is going to have unknown future potential.

The Lakers are not correctly placed because their future would be better described as unknown, rather than poor. The reason is because, while they don't have AD signed beyond this season, they do have him now, the team is playing well, has great chemistry and the Lakers can offer him more money than anyone else.

Imo, a poor future would be a team with an average/below average roster and no way of adding a player who can make a difference.

The Lakers when they had Dwight Howard who gave no indication that he wanted to come back and who most fans didn't want back by the end of the season, old Steve Nash with his broken back and old Kobe and his blown out Achilles would have been a much better example of a team with a poor future than this current Lakers team.



No, actually we don't. Imo, "crystal ball future" has to be part of any analysis of a teams future because, as with the case of the Lakers and AD, they have the advantage when it comes to maintaining the services of their top players.

The other thing this jerkoff fails to consider is that preserving cap space is a huge part of building a contending team in the NBA.

Most of these young cores are going to amount to nothing in time. I think Memphis is the most likely of all to emerge as a contender someday, but that is because they have 2 players who look like future stars and a couple nice pieces along with them. Continued development along with a couple free agent acquisitions and it isn’t hard to imagine Memphis as a contender in a couple years.

Teams like Washington, Detroit, Chicago, Minnesota, Charlotte on the other hand?

Should be near the bottom of this list. It is highly difficult to imagine and of these cores being more than a 1st round playoff exit at their peak. And that is not what teams should be building for. Because some of these won’t even hit that.

And yet he wants to rate them 10+ spots ahead of the Lakers. Give me a break.

And no, I wouldn’t rank the Lakers at 1. But they are easily in the top 10.

 

[flyerhawk]

"The teams I value as having "good" potential"

Oh just shut the fuck up! You have no clue what you're talking about, as usual. In comment # 403 you said the Pistons future potential is "promising". Could you be more full of shit? The answer- of course.

Bucky is a constant prisoner of the moment. He sees some young guy playing well and extrapolates that into that player being a perennial all-star.

This is why he has the Hornets having a very bright future. Sure Graham is 25. Martin is 25. Bridges and Washington are 22 but I'm sure they are all going to turn into All-Stars.

 

[Wamu]

Bucky is a constant prisoner of the moment. He sees some young guy playing well and extrapolates that into that player being a perennial all-star.

This is why he has the Hornets having a very bright future. Sure Graham is 25. Martin is 25. Bridges and Washington are 22 but I'm sure they are all going to turn into All-Stars.

From the moment he said Giannis is already the greatest Milwaukee Buck ever I knew he'd be spewing a bunch of homeristic & odd gibberish. And he hasn't disappointed.

 

[tlance]

Bucky is a constant prisoner of the moment. He sees some young guy playing well and extrapolates that into that player being a perennial all-star.

This is why he has the Hornets having a very bright future. Sure Graham is 25. Martin is 25. Bridges and Washington are 22 but I'm sure they are all going to turn into All-Stars.

If they are lucky, they get 1 all star out of that group. And it probably won’t be the perennial type either.

 

[tlance]

From the moment he said Giannis is already the grestest Milwaukee Buck ever I knew he'd be spewing a bunch of homeristic & odd gibberish. And he hasn't disappointed.

The truth is that if you had to pick 1 player in the game today with potential to be a top 5 all time great in that class with LeBron, Magic and Kareem, the correct answer is Giannis.

But he has an awful long way to go to get there.

And Kareem and big O both won rings in Milwaukee. Let’s wait til Giannis gets his first before we even start that discussion.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Giannis’ first ring is in another city though? Man that would make me laugh after all the BS that dude spews.

 

[flyerhawk]

If they are lucky, they get 1 all star out of that group. And it probably won’t be the perennial type either.

If they are very lucky they might get one. And if they do it is likely of the "good stats, bad team" variety.

 

[Wamu]

The truth is that if you had to pick 1 player in the game today with potential to be a top 5 all time great in that class with LeBron, Magic and Kareem, the correct answer is Giannis.

But he has an awful long way to go to get there.

And Kareem and big O both won rings in Milwaukee. Let’s wait til Giannis gets his first before we even start that discussion.

Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Giannis’ first ring is in another city though? Man that would make me laugh after all the BS that dude spews.

I agree with what you said about Giannis. And if he has to leave Milwaukee to get a ring buckyboy would jump off the Bucks bandwagon & onto whichever team that would be faster than it takes to drain a 3 pointer.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's not what science says should be taken into account when it is a team that is under examination...

That's because it's not a science, it's an art. There is no "formula" that you can plug in to build a team. If there were, more teams would use it and more teams would win titles or at least be contenders.

It's not just about putting talented players on a roster. There have been plenty of teams that have had the talent to be contenders, but aren't because they didn't fit well together in personality, style of play, etc.

AD is just one person who has nothing secured around him and therefore not even the style of the future Lakers game can be predicted...

Which is why the Lakers future is unknown, rather than poor. If AD re-signs with the Lakers, that obviously gives them a better future.

But even if he doesn't, it's still not the end of the world and still wouldn't qualify their future as "poor" because they can go into a rebuild with a ton of cap space and sell top FA's on "owning the LA market".

Now, if AD does happen to move on after this season and they go out and give bad contracts to marginal players in an attempt to prop up Lebron for another season or 2...their future would be poor.

IMO, you can't say "future is good for a team, when... there is no team yet!

Which is why I would have their future as "unknown", at least until we see what AD does.

You can't say their future is poor because they have AD and they have advantages over every other team in the league when it comes to keeping him.

However, you also can't necessarily say it's good since he will be a free agent and can choose to sign elsewhere.

Where it can really get interesting, assuming AD stays, is in the length of contract that he chooses to sign. Barring something completely unforeseen, Lebron will be back next year, then he becomes an unrestricted FA the following year.

I could see AD signing a 1 year deal with a player option on the 2nd year to see what Lebron does with his FA, how much he appears to have left (that decline has to start sometime doesn't it?) and how the Lakers respond.

If that happens, then the Lakers future remains unknown.

 

[tlance]

That's because it's not a science, it's an art. There is no "formula" that you can plug in to build a team. If there were, more teams would use it and more teams would win titles or at least be contenders.

It's not just about putting talented players on a roster. There have been plenty of teams that have had the talent to be contenders, but aren't because they didn't fit well together in personality, style of play, etc.



Which is why the Lakers future is unknown, rather than poor. If AD re-signs with the Lakers, that obviously gives them a better future.

But even if he doesn't, it's still not the end of the world and still wouldn't qualify their future as "poor" because they can go into a rebuild with a ton of cap space and sell top FA's on "owning the LA market".

Now, if AD does happen to move on after this season and they go out and give bad contracts to marginal players in an attempt to prop up Lebron for another season or 2...their future would be poor.



Which is why I would have their future as "unknown", at least until we see what AD does.

You can't say their future is poor because they have AD and they have advantages over every other team in the league when it comes to keeping him.

However, you also can't necessarily say it's good since he will be a free agent and can choose to sign elsewhere.

Where it can really get interesting, assuming AD stays, is in the length of contract that he chooses to sign. Barring something completely unforeseen, Lebron will be back next year, then he becomes an unrestricted FA the following year.

I could see AD signing a 1 year deal with a player option on the 2nd year to see what Lebron does with his FA, how much he appears to have left (that decline has to start sometime doesn't it?) and how the Lakers respond.

If that happens, then the Lakers future remains unknown.

Agree.

But on the high side of the unknown spectrum.

And really there are only a couple teams who aren’t mostly unknown. And the only young cores I am ready to label as “bright” and list ahead of the Lakers are the Grizzlies and the Mavericks.

And even those can go sideways.

 

[trojanfan12]

Agree.

But on the high side of the unknown spectrum.

And really there are only a couple teams who aren’t mostly unknown. And the only young cores I am ready to label as “bright” and list ahead of the Lakers are the Grizzlies and the Mavericks.

And even those can go sideways.

Yep. Regardless of how bright or dim a teams future might be, all it takes is an injury, an ego or 2, or a guy making a surprise decision to make or break a teams future.

 

[Black Adam]

"The teams I value as having "good" potential"

Oh just shut the fuck up! You have no clue what you're talking about, as usual. In comment # 403 you said the Pistons future potential is "promising". Could you be more full of shit? The answer- of course.

I see this fool is in full-on troll mode...

 

[Black Adam]

Yep. Regardless of how bright or dim a teams future might be, all it takes is an injury, an ego or 2, or a guy making a surprise decision to make or break a teams future.

it was like when Wiggitywack was projecting doom and gloom on the Heat...

look how THAT turned out...

 

[Wamu]

it was like when Wiggitywack was projecting doom and gloom on the Heat...

look how THAT turned out...

Dont' forget according to that yo-yo LeBron's legacy was totally ruined last year when he failed to carry the Lakers to the playoffs.

 

[buckalis]

That's because it's not a science, it's an art. There is no "formula" that you can plug in to build a team. If there were, more teams would use it and more teams would win titles or at least be contenders.

It's not just about putting talented players on a roster. There have been plenty of teams that have had the talent to be contenders, but aren't because they didn't fit well together in personality, style of play, etc.



Which is why the Lakers future is unknown, rather than poor. If AD re-signs with the Lakers, that obviously gives them a better future.

But even if he doesn't, it's still not the end of the world and still wouldn't qualify their future as "poor" because they can go into a rebuild with a ton of cap space and sell top FA's on "owning the LA market".

Now, if AD does happen to move on after this season and they go out and give bad contracts to marginal players in an attempt to prop up Lebron for another season or 2...their future would be poor.



Which is why I would have their future as "unknown", at least until we see what AD does.

You can't say their future is poor because they have AD and they have advantages over every other team in the league when it comes to keeping him.

However, you also can't necessarily say it's good since he will be a free agent and can choose to sign elsewhere.

Where it can really get interesting, assuming AD stays, is in the length of contract that he chooses to sign. Barring something completely unforeseen, Lebron will be back next year, then he becomes an unrestricted FA the following year.

I could see AD signing a 1 year deal with a player option on the 2nd year to see what Lebron does with his FA, how much he appears to have left (that decline has to start sometime doesn't it?) and how the Lakers respond.

If that happens, then the Lakers future remains unknown.

You misunderstood the use of the word "science" on the case here... It means that the process of evaluating when projecting the future, has to be under proven scientific rules of what can be taken into account and what cannot...

"Crystal ball" is not among the factors that can be taken into account and this is because it can not be determined, the badge of the team neither can...

In all honesty, if AD would not resign with the Lakers, I would drop the Lakers to be at the bottom of the list and it is exactly the same a mathematician who specializes into statistics would do if he was addressed to perform a similar future "power rankings" projection.

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

You misunderstood the use of the word "science" on the case here... It means that the process of evaluating when projecting the future, has to be under proven scientific rules of what can be taken into account and what cannot...

"Crystal ball" is not among the factors that can be taken into account and this is because it can not be determined, the badge of the team neither can...

In all honesty, if AD would not resign with the Lakers, I would drop the Lakers to be at the bottom of the list and it is exactly the same a mathematician who specializes into statistics would do if he was addressed to perform a similar future "power rankings" projection.

See post #2

 

[trojanfan12]

You misunderstood the use of the word "science" on the case here... It means that the process of evaluating when projecting the future, has to be under proven scientific rules of what can be taken into account and what cannot...

Actually, I understood it just fine. I just don't agree that a scientific approach is all that's needed or even the best approach when projecting a teams future.

The problem with a purely scientific approach is that into account non-scientific variables that not only can effect a teams future, but often times can be the biggest factor determining their future.

 

[trojanfan12]

In all honesty, if AD would not resign with the Lakers, I would drop the Lakers to be at the bottom of the list and it is exactly the same a mathematician who specializes into statistics would do if he was addressed to perform a similar future "power rankings" projection.

And your analysis would still be flawed because your approach would still be too narrow.

AD not re-signing with the Lakers would mean that they would have lots of open roster spots with lots of money to spend and the LA market to attract players. Which would still leave their future as unknown, but not poor.

On the other hand, if their response was to sign 2nd tier stars and role players to long term deals...that would make their future poor.