PDA

View Full Version : Teams in the league worse off than the pacers?



paulomac77
07-14-2007, 12:11 AM
Im new to pacers digest and I hate for my first post to be so negative, but me and a couple friends were having an arguement on the Pacers struggles. We got to thinking that the team has little upside for the future other than Granger, Ike and Shawne with maybe a few others. I havent got to watch any of the summer league games although I was a bit pleased with the teams success despite a roster that I can hardly be excited about. Also I think we were all hoping for a big summer from the front office and .....Kareem Rush, enough said. So we tried to look on the positive side of things and think which teams in the NBA the pacers are in better shape than. Memphis is pretty bad and the Knicks are in bad shape, but who else?

avoidingtheclowns
07-14-2007, 12:16 AM
minnesota and sacramento come to mind

LG33
07-14-2007, 12:17 AM
You'd have to think the 76ers, despite their surge in the latter half of the season, are still worse than us. I mean, we totally sucked the last half, and we still ended up tied with a crappy record. I like what they can be, though. Still, I'm shocked Andre Miller is still there.

BlueNGold
07-14-2007, 12:23 AM
Just looking at the East, you have good reason to be concerned.

Most of the teams at the bottom just got a boost in the draft and we got nothing. For example, Atlanta just got a couple studs in Horford and Law who are LOCKS. Absolute LOCKS. It would have been a boost for us to get just one of them. Other teams like Orlando were already improving and have made good moves. The Knicks will surprise some people this year IMO.

All is not lost though. The Pacers have dumped some talent with the GS trade, but Jack and Al only look good on a bad team. Neither would start for the Pistons for example. Even more important is that the team should have a fresh outlook this coming year. I think they will play hard...and actually do have several talented players in JO, Tinsley, Quis, Shawne. We also have Foster who is really a valuable asset.

Yes, this iteration of the Pacers might be the least amount of talent in memory....but they are still fairly average IMO....definitely not one of the very worst in the league. Don't let the losing streak last year fool you....

Young
07-14-2007, 12:29 AM
The Pacers are not in that bad of shape right now. I just fear with TPTB that it will get very bad though.

But as said before Sacramento, Minnesota are defiantly in worse shape. Boston and New York as well. Philadelphia as well. I think Orlando could be. I think all the money they are giving out could really bite them in the *** in the future.

The Clippers could be on a slide. The Rockets are up in the air. They need to add some bigs and a starting quality point guard would be nice. The Grizzles will get better because they have young talent. The Nuggets may have a bad situation on their hands soon with so many high salary players.

I think that the Pacers have some young and old guys. They need to just trade Jermaine and get it over with. Once that is done they can go from there.

Bball
07-14-2007, 12:40 AM
Just looking at the East, you have good reason to be concerned.

Most of the teams at the bottom just got a boost in the draft and we got nothing. For example, Atlanta just got a couple studs in Horford and Law who are LOCKS. Absolute LOCKS. It would have been a boost for us to get just one of them. Other teams like Orlando were already improving and have made good moves. The Knicks will surprise some people this year IMO.
.

You're missing the genius at work here. We dumped our picks and stuck with the likes of Tinsley to allow these other teams to get better around us so that we can have a realistic shot at the top picks in the lotteries of the coming years! And then we'll be hanging our banners in Conseco!

While those other fool teams are out getting better thru getting better, we'll take our patient approach and get better by getting worse! :brilliant:

:woot:

:sunshine:

-Bball

Peck
07-14-2007, 12:46 AM
I don't mean to be marry sunshine and all but a core of Shawne, Ike & Danny is really a nice core to build with. Add an Andrew (Bynum of course not Bogat) and you could be looking at a front line that can compete with any frontline in the NBA in about 2-3 years.

Our guard situation is poor and as of this moment our center spot is deplorable, however both are on the hands of Walsh because of his love affair with the small forward who can play multiple spots from the early part of the century. That is why you don't have a true shooting guard btw.

However unlike Walsh I feel that Bird, as long has he is not hand tied by Walsh or the owners, will not be content with just making the playoffs.

I think he will make moves, if he is ever truely in charge, that will get us out of this shape.

But that's just me.

Kegboy
07-14-2007, 09:10 AM
I was gonna joke about some WNBA teams, but, seriously, they're all in better shape than we are.

Sacramento is in worse shape. It'll be interesting to see what they do with Bibby now that they signed Moore. One would hope they wouldn't trade him for Drew Gooden now, but who knows.

Minnestota is on par with us. They've got bad apples, but their contract situation is much better. Jaric is their worst contract, which is equivalent to Tinsley's. They've got Foye and Brewer, and really that's it, but conventional wisdom is they'll get more back for KG than we will for JO (as long as McHale doesn't mess it up.)

Also, they're both in the West. Not only is the West significantly harder, but, while the bottom of the East has improved around us, the bottom of the West has improved more around them.

I would argue that every other team is better than us, if not this year, than very soon due to their potential.

Of course, that could all change! Come on Larry, 6 hours and 50 minutes left!

Speed
07-14-2007, 09:17 AM
Of course, that could all change! Come on Larry, 6 hours and 50 minutes left!


What is this deadline again, I missed it?

Oh wait the forum party?

ATL is worse off I think.

Kegboy
07-14-2007, 09:19 AM
Man, don't you people read other threads?

For the 3rd time, I'm talking about the forum party. We need something to talk about!

Speed
07-14-2007, 09:31 AM
Man, don't you people read other threads?

For the 3rd time, I'm talking about the forum party. We need something to talk about!


So it's the forum party, you're referencing? :D

Kegboy
07-14-2007, 09:34 AM
Props for quick use of the edit button.

OakMoses
07-14-2007, 09:34 AM
This is a question I've been thinking about also.

Sacramento is the team that immediately comes to mind. They won't win many games next year and they have almost nobody on their roster with any upside.

We'll win more games than Memphis and Seattle next year, but they both have better young talent than we do.

I also think we'll be better than Milwaukee and Philadelphia next year. Minnesota is in bad shape. I also think we'll be slightly better than Atlanta and Charlotte, though cases could be made for both of those teams.

bulldog
07-14-2007, 10:14 AM
"Woeful Knicks owe more than 45 million in luxury tax"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2935728

Production-wise we're right around where they are, but spending so much to get so little is an embarrassment.


I also think we'll be better than Milwaukee

Milwaukee was a pretty good team last year before they got hit with a ton of injuries, they could make the playoffs, especially if they get something for Yi.

Brian
07-14-2007, 10:18 AM
I dont understand why everyone is saying sactown...
Sac Ind
C-Miller C-Jeff Foster
PF-Reef/Thomas PF-JO (who we more than likely wont have
SF-Artest SF-Granger
SG-Martin SG-Daniels
PG-Bibby PG-Tinsley

So on a recap Sac
C-Better
PF-Not better (but who knows for how long,if we trade JO)
SF-(Yes it is artest,but none would say granger is more talented)
SG-Better
PG-Better


Final Score-Sac 4,Ind 1


If you ask 9 out of 10 people which team is better id bet theyd say sactown.

Speed
07-14-2007, 10:35 AM
I dont understand why everyone is saying sactown...
Sac Ind
C-Miller C-Jeff Foster
PF-Reef/Thomas PF-JO (who we more than likely wont have
SF-Artest SF-Granger
SG-Martin SG-Daniels
PG-Bibby PG-Tinsley

So on a recap Sac
C-Better
PF-Not better (but who knows for how long,if we trade JO)
SF-(Yes it is artest,but none would say granger is more talented)
SG-Better
PG-Better


Final Score-Sac 4,Ind 1


If you ask 9 out of 10 people which team is better id bet theyd say sactown.


I like Martin. Do we mean head to head or is it record against the league because then the West teams are at such a disadvantage?

Sac fitting together wise, thanks to a scoring PG and Ron is in trouble in my opinion.

bulldog
07-14-2007, 10:37 AM
Sac plays in the West. They have no shot at the playoffs, whereas even the Fever have a shot to make it in the East.

Unfortunately, most of the teams in the West that aren't very good (Grizzlies, Blazers, Sonics) have more upside than we do, so its tough to find teams that are in too poor of a position.

NapTonius Monk
07-14-2007, 10:48 AM
You'd have to think the 76ers, despite their surge in the latter half of the season, are still worse than us. I mean, we totally sucked the last half, and we still ended up tied with a crappy record. I like what they can be, though. Still, I'm shocked Andre Miller is still there.

Man, oh man, how I wish we could get our hands on Korver and Andre Miller. Carney as filler would just be greedy. I haven't heard any rumors in that direction, but I'd sure love for that to be the case. I think those are O'brien types of players, even though Miller isn't that great of a shooter. He's one of the best point guards in the game, in terms of orchestrating the offense.

NapTonius Monk
07-14-2007, 11:02 AM
Im new to pacers digest and I hate for my first post to be so negative, but me and a couple friends were having an arguement on the Pacers struggles. We got to thinking that the team has little upside for the future other than Granger, Ike and Shawne with maybe a few others. I havent got to watch any of the summer league games although I was a bit pleased with the teams success despite a roster that I can hardly be excited about. Also I think we were all hoping for a big summer from the front office and .....Kareem Rush, enough said. So we tried to look on the positive side of things and think which teams in the NBA the pacers are in better shape than. Memphis is pretty bad and the Knicks are in bad shape, but who else?

I don't know why people think that Memphis is bad at all. Bear in mind that Gasol was hurt for a large portion when the season started, and they never really recovered from that. But this is a team that was winning 50+ games, and they upgrade with Rudy Gay at small forward. Once Conley settles in at the point, they are going to be dangerous.

GenlHooker
07-14-2007, 11:29 AM
NO ONE ELSE IS WORSE, FACE IT THE NBA BALL STOPS HERE!

Anthem
07-14-2007, 11:32 AM
Orlando will be better in the near term, but I think they're gonna be hurting over the next couple of years. Yeah, they've got Dwight, which is nice. But 15mil for Shard was a big mistake.

CableKC
07-14-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm not an optimist....so I'm not going to sugarcoat things.

I think that we are in the overall worst position of any team. Teams that many of you suggest; the Hawks, Grizzlies...even the Sixers; are obviously in "rebuilding mode"....but in a position...at least IMHO...to improve in the coming couple of seasons. By next season, most of these teams will be in a better financial situation while developing their young players AND having the financial flexibility to improve their situation.

Some have sited that the TWolves are in as bad as we are.....but they don't have as many "bad long term contracts" as the Pacers do....and if they do trade KG ( like we can trade JONeal )....they can get more then the Pacers can for JONeal.

The closest team that I can think of that maybe even remotely close to us ( in terms being "worse off" ) is the Kings. They have similiar financial situation where they have some long term contract obligations and little room for overall improvement.

The difference is that the majority of the Kings "huge contracts" come off by the 2009-2010 season ( down to 32 mil in salaries by 2009-2010 ), whereas the Pacers still owes about $44mil ( minus the team option for Marquis ) in the 2009-2010 season.

In addition, the Kings FO recognizes that there is little room for improvement and appears to be heading towards a "rebuilding" effort ( with possible moves to trade Artest and Bibby ) as opposed to the unknown direction ( at least IMHO ) that TPTB are headed towards ( as in rebuilding or reloading ).

To me...because our financial situation positively sucks....there is little room for improvement unless we make a major move

Kegboy
07-14-2007, 01:05 PM
KC's not only right, he's killed the last vestige of sunshine left in me.

:darkness:

Anthem
07-14-2007, 01:16 PM
To me...because our financial situation positively sucks....there is little room for improvement unless we make a major move
But assuming we're open to a major move, then we're in better shape than the Kings. Because no matter how much he's downplayed, JO's a much more valuable asset than anybody on the Kings roster.

CableKC
07-14-2007, 02:20 PM
KC's not only right, he's killed the last vestige of sunshine left in me.

:darkness:
Join the darkside with me.....:buddies:

Los Angeles
07-14-2007, 02:29 PM
I would argue that every other team is better than us, if not this year, than very soon due to their potential.


I see nothing but potential when it comes to the Pacers. I'm not making a joke. We've filled our roster with potential "break out" guys. At this stage, it puts us just below .500, but the potential is there. We've got 2 years and we'll be mostly out of the salary mess.

We have plenty if not too much "potential", what we don't have are proven stars. I just pray that O'Brien can bring up our young players without knee capping them with too much "system" play.

CableKC
07-14-2007, 03:03 PM
But assuming we're open to a major move, then we're in better shape than the Kings. Because no matter how much he's downplayed, JO's a much more valuable asset than anybody on the Kings roster.
I agree...to a certain extent. The only concern I had is that TPTB have to make the right deal in order to give us some financial flexibility...and the only way to do that ( realistically ) is to move JONeal....which they are obviously okay with.

Assuming that no deal comes along that blindsides up like normal ( that comes out of the blue )....looking at the 2 potential rumors of recent months......the Nets and the Lakers deal.....one offers a chance to rebuild ( with a clear path towards rebuilding with a trade geared towards getting us some financial flexiblity ) and the other allows us to reload ( as in try to compete with RJeff and Krstic ). Assuming that we don't immediately trade RJeff for Expiring Contracts....the problem with the Net's deal is that it does get us a near-All Star starter like RJeff while providing little financial flexiblility in the next 3 seasons ( due to RJeff's 14+ mil a year contract until 2010-2011 season ) to resign all ( or even most ) of our young prospects...like Ike, Granger, Shawne and Krstic....when they are up for renewal.

My thought is that Bird/JO'B thinks that we can compete in the LEastern Conference. Compared to the Lakers rumored deals ( assuming that the best we can hope for is a Odom-less trade ).....the Nets RJeff/Krstic deal will allow us to be more competitive compared to some Kwame/Bynum/Farmar ( or Crittenton ) deal.......unfortunately, I don't think that we would get any further with an RJeff/Krstic trade then keeping JONeal.

BlueNGold
07-14-2007, 04:12 PM
I agree...to a certain extent. The only concern I had is that TPTB have to make the right deal in order to give us some financial flexibility...and the only way to do that ( realistically ) is to move JONeal....which they are obviously okay with.

Assuming that no deal comes along that blindsides up like normal ( that comes out of the blue )....looking at the 2 potential rumors of recent months......the Nets and the Lakers deal.....one offers a chance to rebuild ( with a clear path towards rebuilding with a trade geared towards getting us some financial flexiblity ) and the other allows us to reload ( as in try to compete with RJeff and Krstic ). Assuming that we don't immediately trade RJeff for Expiring Contracts....the problem with the Net's deal is that it does get us a near-All Star starter like RJeff while providing little financial flexiblility in the next 3 seasons ( due to RJeff's 14+ mil a year contract until 2010-2011 season ) to resign all ( or even most ) of our young prospects...like Ike, Granger, Shawne and Krstic....when they are up for renewal.

My thought is that Bird/JO'B thinks that we can compete in the LEastern Conference. Compared to the Lakers rumored deals ( assuming that the best we can hope for is a Odom-less trade ).....the Nets RJeff/Krstic deal will allow us to be more competitive compared to some Kwame/Bynum/Farmar ( or Crittenton ) deal.......unfortunately, I don't think that we would get any further with an RJeff/Krstic trade then keeping JONeal.

Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.

dohman
07-14-2007, 05:24 PM
Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.

If Jefferson can play SG and Kristic is healthy like when he tore up the pacers int he playoffs a few years ago I would do that trade. We do not get a player back that will ever be of JO's Caliber but it does give us two players that will fit much better into JOB's system. I feel we will get much better production out of the 2 players than we will JO. That would give us flexibility to one of our SG's for a expiring contract or a pg.

I would rather have the laker deal with bynum and critt but I wouldnt be opposed to the JO deal.

denyfizle
07-14-2007, 06:08 PM
to quickly answer the topic:

I think our record last season stated clearly that we are in the lower class nowadays. I can't really pin point clear cut teams that are worse than us... maybe the Celtics, Bobcats, Wolves, Hawks, Kings, Sonics and the Grizzlies.

The Wolves however at least have a high value superstar in KG so anything can happen with them depending on how they play their cards.

Sonics have Durant, so I guess that helps generate excitement for their franchise, but overall we are still superior than them I think.

The Griz may climb out of this group though. They will have a healthy Gasol (if they don't trade him) and a great draft prospect in Conley.

We stink not just because of our record and history, but also because of the lack of identity and excitement with the way our team plays. Maybe JOB can bring that this year but as of now, we're definitely one of the least interesting teams to watch in the league from a regular fan's persperctive.

SoCalPacers
07-14-2007, 07:08 PM
We have nice potential frontline with Shawne, Ike and Danny, IMHO that I would LOVE to see Bynum in Blue and gold next year, its a big if but if Karim Rush can keep his summer league momentum we'd have two good shooters in Marquis and Karim, the bad news is that AI wannabe Tinsley, I hope JOB can get him to hustle and show that he can run an NBA offense, however the Celtics have improved, the Hawks are getting better and we play in the toughest division in the Eastern Conference. We're lottery bound this year, but hopefully with a ping-pong ball miracle we'll get OJ Mayo and then we will be on the upside.

CableKC
07-14-2007, 07:29 PM
Although I would much rather see Baby Bynum in a Pacer uniform, I think the RJeff/Krstic trade would result immediate improvement....and if offered, there is NO doubt at all that we will take that deal.

RJ is an all-star level talent in his own right and would average 18-20ppg for the Pacers playing SG. He is probably a top 30-40 player in the league.

Krstic has already proven that he will be one of the better centers in the east and will easily average 15-18ppg. Just in his 3rd season at the tender age of 23, he averaged 16.4ppg after increasing his production nicely each year since the beginning of his career in the NBA. He is already better than Brad Miller ever was and will make a fine center.

No, neither of these players are as good as JO. JO is a top 20 player if healthy. However, I think they fit our needs better right now and particularly in the future as JO ages. BTW, RJ and esp. Krstic are much younger.

The only concern I have is our interior defense. We really do need a shot-blocking presence in there...not shotblocking, just the threat of it. Ike, Murphy, Foster and Krstic are NOT shot-blockers at all. Harrison cannot be relied upon.
I agree with you that RJeff is a solid player that can probably achieve the level of scoring that you suggest.....while ignoring that I think that he is more of a SF then a SG along with the fact that TPTB does the same ( since we play SFs at the SG rotation anyway ).....the problem isn't with what he brings to the court....its the fact that he is owed about $14mil for each season until the 2010-2011 season.

I wouldn't mind getting Krstic which would add to our young core of Granger, Ike and Shawne....but the problem is that we are still in a financial bind ESPECIALLY after adding RJeff's long term ( and huge contract ) to Tinsley, Dunleavy's and Murphy's contracts.

Unless there isn't much of a concern to resign all 4 players and we take a "let's burn that bridge when we get to it" mentality....adding RJeff does not allow for any type of financial flexiblility to resign anybody that we draft...much less any of our young players that we do want to keep. I don't think that we are going to easily move any of those Huge Contracts that we have anytime soon...or at least not before we have to resign the young players that we want to keep.

However, if we take a "let's win now" approach....then we can pick the best 2 players from our core of players....and then move the rest in S&Ts.

CableKC
07-14-2007, 07:35 PM
We're lottery bound this year, but hopefully with a ping-pong ball miracle we'll get OJ Mayo and then we will be on the upside.
I don't believe in miracles anymore....Stern and the Pacers have destroyed all hope that I have.

Smashed_Potato
07-14-2007, 07:57 PM
Lakers should be included they are a sinking ship.

BlueNGold
07-14-2007, 09:13 PM
I agree with you that RJeff is a solid player that can probably achieve the level of scoring that you suggest.....while ignoring that I think that he is more of a SF then a SG along with the fact that TPTB does the same ( since we play SFs at the SG rotation anyway ).....the problem isn't with what he brings to the court....its the fact that he is owed about $14mil for each season until the 2010-2011 season.

I wouldn't mind getting Krstic which would add to our young core of Granger, Ike and Shawne....but the problem is that we are still in a financial bind ESPECIALLY after adding RJeff's long term ( and huge contract ) to Tinsley, Dunleavy's and Murphy's contracts.

Unless there isn't much of a concern to resign all 4 players and we take a "let's burn that bridge when we get to it" mentality....adding RJeff does not allow for any type of financial flexiblility to resign anybody that we draft...much less any of our young players that we do want to keep. I don't think that we are going to easily move any of those Huge Contracts that we have anytime soon...or at least not before we have to resign the young players that we want to keep.

However, if we take a "let's win now" approach....then we can pick the best 2 players from our core of players....and then move the rest in S&Ts.

Great points on the contract situation. It does hurt our flexibility...and that is one of the reasons I prefer the LA deal. But there are a few reasons I would trade with NJ if the LA deal falls through.

First, we are not contending anyway for literally years due to those bad contracts. JO is not getting us there for sure. We should at least try to win a few more games for a couple years. What it comes down to is, I think we are better with Krstic and RJ than JO.

Second, BOTH Shawne and Danny do not fit in the starting lineup. One will need to be moved if both deserve to start. Most people like them both, but I think one is gone after this year depending on what TPTB longer term plans are.

Third, Ike is just potential right now. There are several holes in his game and he is a very undersized PF for a franchise that wants to compete for a championship. Until he plays like Elton Brand, I suspect his tenure will be short here. If he shows he can dominate the block this year, we may have a good problem. Then, we will probably need to make a call whether to keep Krstic or Ike...and hopefully make a clever deal to recover from that spot. ...but if Ike does not make major improvements, his value drops and we re-sign him on the cheap.

In any event, we sacrifice Quis and Foster to keep 2 of the 4 among Granger, Krstic, Williams and Ike. Then we have 4 HUGE valuable expiring contracts to re-engineer the team. In the meantime over the next couple years, this trade keeps the Pacers in Indy and probably in the playoffs.

Rajah Brown
07-14-2007, 10:25 PM
BlueNGold-

'Keeps the Pacers in Indy' ? Do you know something we don't
or what ?

Brian
07-14-2007, 11:03 PM
I like Martin. Do we mean head to head or is it record against the league because then the West teams are at such a disadvantage?

Sac fitting together wise, thanks to a scoring PG and Ron is in trouble in my opinion.

I just meant team situation,I think that sactown has alot more options than the pacers.

gng930
07-15-2007, 12:12 AM
Minnesota - KG > JO and their bad contracts aren't nearly as bad as your Bermuda triangle (Troy, Dun, Tins). As a Laker fan, I'd trade Odom, Bynum, Kwame, and Farmar for KG and their 3 worst contracts if possible. OTOH, I'd only trade 2 out of Odom, Bynum, and Kwame for JO and Tinsley. I wouldn't take Dunleavy or Troy under any circumstance. Brewer may end up being just as valuable as Granger down the line. Foye > Williams at this point. I like Ike's potential, but based on what I've read, I don't think his value is very high right now.

SAC - Their bad contracts aren't as bad either. Kevin Martin is comparable to Granger in value. However, they don't have anybody half as valuable as JO. You've got them beat, but if JO opts out next year, all bets are off.

NY - Depends on Curry and Z coexisting and Marbury becoming less selfish. I don't count on either happening. Knicks will continue to be in luxury tax hell.

ATL - Clippers East but at least they aren't paying for it.

ORL - Not right now, but they will end up regretting the Rashard Lewis signing. He's hardly the kind of player that can carry a team on offense.