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

[tlance]

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.

Well, if you had any skill evaluating talent and were able to be objective, then your scientific approach might have some merit.

And even without AD the Lakers Wouldn’t be at the bottom because there are other teams that have nothing to build around.

 

[buckalis]

Well, if you had any skill evaluating talent and were able to be objective, then your scientific approach might have some merit.

And even without AD the Lakers Wouldn’t be at the bottom because there are other teams that have nothing to build around.

We've already been through this, you is the "Einstein of basketball knowledge in here"... you make all the right decisions when doing trades on you video game!

You even suggest that 11 empty roster spots is a secured future!

 

[Shaqdaddy11]

We've already been through this, you is the "Einstein of basketball knowledge in here"... you make all the right decisions when doing trades on you video game!

You even suggest that 11 empty roster spots is a secured future!

 

[tlance]

We've already been through this, you is the "Einstein of basketball knowledge in here"... you make all the right decisions when doing trades on you video game!

You even suggest that 11 empty roster spots is a secured future!

Well, at least I am smart enough to understand that the other 29 teams aren’t going to bend over backwards to trade their best players to the Bucks.

If anybody here is making video game trades, it is you.

 

[buckalis]

Well, at least I am smart enough to understand that the other 29 teams aren’t going to bend over backwards to trade their best players to the Bucks.

If anybody here is making video game trades, it is you.

Hmmmm... the conversation and the subject is... trades?

I wonder what kind of troll are you, if ALL replying you ever do when caught goofing (which is always) is to change the subject...

It's the definition of trolling!

You come in here prepared to argue that the Lakers should be ranked higher, because... they have AD, but no picks, only one tradeable asset and... 11 empty roster spots coming another season later!

Bravo "Einstein of basketball"! You win the "jerk of the year" award!

 

[tlance]

Hmmmm... the conversation and the subject is... trades?

I wonder what kind of troll are you, if ALL replying you ever do when caught goofing (which is always) is to change the subject...

It's the definition of trolling!

You come in here prepared to argue that the Lakers should be ranked higher, because... they have AD, but no picks, only one tradeable asset and... 11 empty roster spots coming another season later!

Bravo "Einstein of basketball"! You win the "jerk of the year" award!

You are starting to get it!

Shame on you trying to call me on my “goofs” with your track record. Last time you tried to list my “mistakes” you completely fabricated 2/3s of them.

 

[Sparhawk]

 

[buckalis]

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.

But it is not "unknown"... with "unknown" I have the teams which already have a talented young roster but luck a "leader" to curry the team... If they can land a leader, or if they can develop one, or if they can draft a future leader, is what makes their potential unknown.

On the Lakers I don't count for AD's possible departure at all (nor for any other team for that matter), if he will depart, I'll move them right at the bottom as I already have said, I rank them as having a "poor" future, because they have their entire roster (but AD) aging and other than Kuzma and Karuzo who are coming from the bench, there is nobody else in age to be counted for the future... They have a limited number of picks and no cap space to go for a proven youngish talent out of free agency after they extend AD (which is what I also take in mind).

 

[tlance]

But it is not "unknown"... with "unknown" I have the teams which already have a talented young roster but luck a "leader" to curry the team... If they can land a leader, or if they can develop one, or if they can draft a future leader, is what makes their potential unknown.

On the Lakers I don't count for AD's possible departure at all (nor for any other team for that matter), if he will depart, I'll move them right at the bottom as I already have said, I rank them as having a "poor" future, because they have their entire roster (but AD) aging and other than Kuzma and Karuzo who are coming from the bench, there is nobody else in age to be counted for the future... They have a limited number of picks and no cap space to go for a proven youngish talent out of free agency after they extend AD (which is what I also take in mind).

And that is where you are making a big mistake.

It is a lot harder to find a leader then it is to fill out a roster with role players.

Teams who have superstar players under contract are far, far ahead of young teams that don’t. And unless they have a player who projects as a potential superstar on the roster (Dallas, Memphis) those young groups should be closer to the bottom than the top.

 

[trojanfan12]

But it is not "unknown"... with "unknown" I have the teams which already have a talented young roster but luck a "leader" to curry the team... If they can land a leader, or if they can develop one, or if they can draft a future leader, is what makes their potential unknown.

On the Lakers I don't count for AD's possible departure at all (nor for any other team for that matter), if he will depart, I'll move them right at the bottom as I already have said, I rank them as having a "poor" future, because they have their entire roster (but AD) aging and other than Kuzma and Karuzo who are coming from the bench, there is nobody else in age to be counted for the future... They have a limited number of picks and no cap space to go for a proven youngish talent out of free agency after they extend AD (which is what I also take in mind).

Again, this is the flaw in your logic. It doesn't matter how old the players who aren't signed long term are because...they aren't signed long term. So the Lakers don't have to keep them.

If AD stays, their future isn't poor because they have a young superstar to build around. If he leaves, their future still isn't poor because they would have roster spots, a ton of cap space and the LA market to attract players.

Look, we all get it. You hate the Lakers. That's fine. But you allow it to effect your analysis which prevents you from being anywhere close to objective.

Additionally, as @tlance points out, just having a bunch of young players with no leader isn't a recipe for success.

 

[buckalis]

Again, this is the flaw in your logic. It doesn't matter how old the players who aren't signed long term are because...they aren't signed long term. So the Lakers don't have to keep them.

If AD stays, their future isn't poor because they have a young superstar to build around. If he leaves, their future still isn't poor because they would have roster spots, a ton of cap space and the LA market to attract players.

Look, we all get it. You hate the Lakers. That's fine. But you allow it to effect your analysis which prevents you from being anywhere close to objective.

Additionally, as @tlance points out, just having a bunch of young players with no leader isn't a recipe for success.

LOL... It means IYO (and T-Lance) that I have to upgrade the Knicks too... This is pure BS your (non existing) logic makes up... A team with nothing, has nothing, a team with little, has little, a team with something, has something and a team with everything, has everything...

If the objective is to judge the future, then nothing, or little, or something, or everything, must be addressed to the future... That's what every sensible one does, another who thinks different, he is not rational and you've proved with your "logic", that you are not rational...

One more thing... nobody hates the Lakers as a team, everybody other than their fans hate todays Lakers for what they are and what they represent as well as how they've achieve it... That's why the league has penalized them and that's why the league has taken action for this kind of morality to never happen again in the league... today's Lakers are a circus not a team, pity for the team's history which the "fans" should at least respect.

 

[logic]

is

One more thing... nobody hates the Lakers as a team, everybody other than their fans hate todays Lakers for what they are and what they represent as well as how they've achieve it... That's why the league has penalized them and that's why the league has taken action for this kind of morality to never happen again in the league... today's Lakers are a circus not a team, pity for the team's history which the "fans" should at least respect.

Thanks for letting me know. I was unaware that I hated this Lakers team. I don't know what wrong it is they represent or how they evilly achieved it, but it is great to know that I hate it.

 

[tlance]

LOL... It means IYO (and T-Lance) that I have to upgrade the Knicks too... This is pure BS your (non existing) logic makes up... A team with nothing, has nothing, a team with little, has little, a team with something, has something and a team with everything, has everything...

If the objective is to judge the future, then nothing, or little, or something, or everything, must be addressed to the future... That's what every sensible one does, another who thinks different, he is not rational and you've proved with your "logic", that you are not rational...

One more thing... nobody hates the Lakers as a team, everybody other than their fans hate todays Lakers for what they are and what they represent as well as how they've achieve it... That's why the league has penalized them and that's why the league has taken action for this kind of morality to never happen again in the league... today's Lakers are a circus not a team, pity for the team's history which the "fans" should at least respect.

Why would you upgrade the Knicks?

Do they have a superstar on their roster? Or a young player who projects to be maybe be one down the road?

Hard no.

 

[trojanfan12]

LOL... It means IYO (and T-Lance) that I have to upgrade the Knicks too... This is pure BS your (non existing) logic makes up... A team with nothing, has nothing, a team with little, has little, a team with something, has something and a team with everything, has everything...

First of all, what do the Knicks have to do with this. I didn't say anything about the Knicks.

And a team with nothing has the opportunity to turn themselves into just about anything they want because they have to get players to fill the roster.

If the Lakers have 11 open roster spots and a young superstar in AD to build around, the worst their future could be is unknown because we don't know what they are going to do.

If AD doesn't return and they now have 12 spots to fill, the worst their future could be is still unknown because we don't know who they will get.

In those scenarios, the Lakers could set themselves up for anywhere from a poor to excellent future depending upon how good or bad the players they get are.

An example of a team with a poor future would be the 2016-17 Lakers. Going into that season, they had missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons and Kobe had just retired. In a desperate attempt to get back to the playoffs, Jim Buss signed Timofey Mozgov and Luol Deng to big, long term deals. THAT was a team with a poor future.

 

[buckalis]

Why would you upgrade the Knicks?

Do they have a superstar on their roster? Or a young player who projects to be maybe be one down the road?

Hard no.

Didn't you say "Even if AD goes, still the Lakers should be considered of "Unknown" potential... Lakers without AD=Knicks and even less so...

It's your own words!

 

[tlance]

Didn't you say "Even if AD goes, still the Lakers should be considered of "Unknown" potential... Lakers without AD=Knicks and even less so...

It's your own words!

Sure.

The Lakers have shown the ability to attract free agent superstars and assemble a winning roster. The Knicks have not done that. They have done the opposite of that in a remarkable display of organizational incompetence.

So no, the Knicks and Lakers are not in the same situation at all. Not even close.

 

[buckalis]

First of all, what do the Knicks have to do with this. I didn't say anything about the Knicks.

The Knicks are in the ranking too, that's the relation. Who told you that because you mentioned the Lakers, makes your statement more rational? should the Knicks be treated different in the rankings? Terms are equal for all teams, if a change which affects their future happens, the rankings are revised.

And a team with nothing has the opportunity to turn themselves into just about anything they want because they have to get players to fill the roster.

No it's not correct, let a future promising change happen first and then it will be evaluated accordingly...

If the Lakers have 11 open roster spots and a young superstar in AD to build around, the worst their future could be is unknown because we don't know what they are going to do.

If AD doesn't return and they now have 12 spots to fill, the worst their future could be is still unknown because we don't know who they will get.

In those scenarios, the Lakers could set themselves up for anywhere from a poor to excellent future depending upon how good or bad the players they get are.

I already said that I don't use crystal balls... I'm not prepared to go in circles repeating all the same, because you think crystal balls are a method, they are not!

An example of a team with a poor future would be the 2016-17 Lakers. Going into that season, they had missed the playoffs for 3 straight seasons and Kobe had just retired. In a desperate attempt to get back to the playoffs, Jim Buss signed Timofey Mozgov and Luol Deng to big, long term deals. THAT was a team with a poor future.

I don't have any 16-17 teams in the rankings and therefore the 16-17 Lakers neither.

 

[buckalis]

Sure.

The Lakers have shown the ability to attract free agent superstars and assemble a winning roster. The Knicks have not done that. They have done the opposite of that in a remarkable display of organizational incompetence.

So no, the Knicks and Lakers are not in the same situation at all. Not even close.

Good... it's what makes you the Einstein of basketball in here!

"What they did, before, they it will happen again"... LOL... I already said I don't use crystal balls, that's your method, to me and to any analyst who would do the same, it doesn't matter if they are called Lakers, or Griizzlies, or Knicks, or Bucks... Let them do the move first, and I will revise the rankings accordingly...

I'm not prepared to go in circles with you (again) either... this is a full stop.

 

[trojanfan12]

The Knicks are in the ranking too, that's the relation. Who told you that because you mentioned the Lakers, makes your statement more rational? should the Knicks be treated different in the rankings?

The Knicks actually could be moved up to unknown as well. Their immediate future (this year and next) is pretty bleak. But after next season, they look to have only 5 current players set to be on the roster and, I believe, only one (RJ Barrett) beyond that. The most highly paid of those players will be Julius Randle at about $19 million.

So, they will have a lot of roster spots and a lot of money. Given their history under Dolan's ownership, they'll probably screw it up. But having a lot of roster spots and a lot of money to spend is usually not a bad thing.

No it's not correct, let a future promising change happen first and then it will be evaluated accordingly...

Actually, it is 100% correct. You can't truly make a statement about a teams future until you know who's going to be on that team...hence the "unknown" designation.

I already said that I don't use crystal balls... I'm not prepared to go in circles repeating all the same, because you think crystal balls are a method, they are not!

The use of "unknown" is the exact opposite of a "crystal ball"...it's literally saying, "we don't know what this teams future is because their roster isn't put together yet".

When you designate a team as poor when they don't have a set roster...THAT is using a crystal ball because you are assuming they aren't going to put together a good roster.

I don't have any 16-17 teams in the rankings and therefore the 16-17 Lakers neither.

Please tell me you understand what the term "an example" means.

 

[buckalis]

The Knicks actually

I have nothing to add than repeating the same on your repeating of all the same, but on this, which is different to what T-Lance suggests...

Therefore I'll let you two guys have a "productive conversation" on whether the Knicks and the Lakers should be ranked all the same as you suggest, or the Lakers higher as T-L suggests...