PDA

View Full Version : CBS Sports says we've got the 10th best roster in the NBA



Heisenberg
07-28-2011, 06:06 AM
http://eye-on-basketball.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22748484/30879011


Managing an NBA roster is an intricate task.

So many factors must be considered. First, and foremost, you must acquire top-level talent, handing out the big dollars to players that have earned it. You must avoid the risks that go with overpaying average talent, questionable characters and players who are past their prime or dealing with injuries. You must also create a balance based on positions and skillsets so as to avoid redundancy. Of course, there's the critical issue of timing, too. To create sustained success and a potential championship window, it helps to have your best players aging at the same time so that they will be locked into contracts for a similar duration.

With so many complication factors and with the fate of a franchise tied so closely to the health and contract statuses of its best players, it's no wonder we see such a wide range of quality when we assess the rosters around the league. But who, really, is in the best shape right now? And, conversely, whose roster is the worst?

To answer that question, try this hypothetical: If you were a new NBA owner in an undisclosed location granted the ability to poach an entire roster from a current team -- taking with you all of the players and their contracts, but not the coaching and management staffs -- who would you take? What would your list look like?

Here's one unscientific crack at that hypothetical, a ranking of the NBA's thirty rosters from worst to first. Included with each team are its key assets (stars, emerging stars on rookie deals, good players on reasonable contracts), its key anchors (bad contracts, ill-fitting pieces, aging stars who are owed more future money than they will be worth) and questions (free agency decisions, problems with roster construction). Remember, this ranking is for right now, not last season or next season, although the future -- both long-term and short-term -- obviously plays a factor in determining the desireability of a roster.
10. Indiana Pacers (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/teams/page/IND)

Assets: Roy Hibbert (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/1622538), George Hill (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/1622539), Darren Collison (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/1685203), Paul George (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/1755181), James Posey (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/139089)ís expiring contract, cap flexibility

Anchors: Danny Granger (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/players/playerpage/555950)

Questions: Depth, experience

Analysis: The Pacers are not only headed in the right direction, they are poised to become major players in the Eastern Conference next year if they spend their chips smartly in free agency. Indiana has talented young players at virtually every position and its one big-dollar contract, Granger's, is both reasonable for his production and tradeable if need be. This group needs time to gel together and an infusion of elite talent. The flexibility and building blocks are in place for that to happen.
It's great to get some love, but that honestly feels pretty darn high to me.

15th parallel
07-28-2011, 07:53 AM
Well it's pretty reasonable given the condition that the team should spend wisely in the free agency and there's a wide range of possible improvements as compared to most teams who are tied with some awful contracts. But as I said before on others, ranking rosters based on name does not necessarily reflect on the future team standings as the season progresses.

OakMoses
07-28-2011, 08:41 AM
Interesting to me that Tyler Hansbrough is not an asset.

90'sNBARocked
07-28-2011, 09:51 AM
Interesting to me that Tyler Hansbrough is not an asset.

or they could just say James Posey, but James Posey's expiring contract

xIndyFan
07-28-2011, 10:35 AM
i agree with the premise that the pacers have a very attractive roster situation going forward. but quibble with the specifics of his list.

danny is not an anchor. neither is his contract.

the value of james posey's expiring contract. expiring contracts can be useful to take back salary if a team is over the cap. but in the pacer's case, teams won't want to take back a contract they don't have to. for posey's contract to be valuable, posey will have to be playing well. if he is playing well, the pacers have no reason to trade him then.

pathil275
07-28-2011, 12:22 PM
We deserved to be 10th on that list after all the years of struggling. Good read though.

My favorite part is the Kahn taunt.

"[...] or an owner that isn't demanding a win now proposition and is simply looking for some thrills this group could deliver that if armed with the right coach and a clear-thinking GM. The group is still years away but at least it's no longer decades away. "

Heisenberg
07-28-2011, 12:27 PM
The criteria's pretty wishy washy. He says it's a list of the roster you want "right now," but then the future's considered. An anchor is originally defined as a guy not worth his contract but then our one anchor has a reasonable and tradeable contract.

Kid Minneapolis
07-28-2011, 12:54 PM
I think it's reasonable to say we have 10th-ranked roster. It's a very solid roster... just not a star-studded one. More than a few experts have said all we need is a superstar to go with our cast to make us a serious contender.

ChristianDudley
07-28-2011, 12:59 PM
They didn't even mention Hansbrough. I'm just glad that people are starting to take notice of this team.

Trader Joe
07-28-2011, 01:00 PM
Interesting to me that Tyler Hansbrough is not an asset.

That was my immediate thought as well. Especially as a lotto pick from only 2 years ago who has had moderate production

Heisenberg
07-28-2011, 01:04 PM
He was probably scared to mention Hans. Sometimes I get this feeling from over my shoulder like something monstrous is barreling towards me. My eyes get wide and I scream "IT'S HANSBROOOOUGH!" and just take off running.

pacer4ever
07-28-2011, 01:15 PM
lol at ORL so low and others. But what I really got a kick out of was them listing Moe Williams as the Clippers anchor :lol:



The title is mis leading IMO because I think the writer is saying brightest futures not current rankings. No way in hell Clippes are a top 5 team next year and the Magic are 2nd to last.

imbtyler
07-28-2011, 01:33 PM
i agree with the premise that the pacers have a very attractive roster situation going forward. but quibble with the specifics of his list.

danny is not an anchor. neither is his contract.

the value of james posey's expiring contract. expiring contracts can be useful to take back salary if a team is over the cap. but in the pacer's case, teams won't want to take back a contract they don't have to. for posey's contract to be valuable, posey will have to be playing well. if he is playing well, the pacers have no reason to trade him then.

Even if he's playing well, Posey is more valuable as an expiring contract than a player. I don't see him getting much time this season, though, barring severe injuries and/or lack of offseason player movement. As far as our "core" being based around Hibbert, George, George, and Collison, that sounds like we're one veteran PF short of having one helluva starting lineup, and a young one at that.

ballism
07-28-2011, 01:36 PM
lol at ORL so low and others. But what I really got a kick out of was them listing Moe Williams as the Clippers anchor :lol:


The title is mis leading IMO because I think the writer is saying brightest futures not current rankings. No way in hell Clippes are a top 5 team next year and the Magic are 2nd to last.

The writer says it's not about future wins, although it goes into account.
I believe the writer means "most desirable roster situations". In that sense, obviously any GM would take Clips situation over Orlando - over most situations, tbh.

The same goes for us - most GMs would probably love to have Pacers' situation on their teams and add any pieces they want with all the cap.
It doesn't mean future wins, since cap can be screwed up very easily, but it is a very nice situation.

I do think Celtics are way too low. They still have a few years and they are close. And Rockets are too low. They have a ton of flexibility, no horrible contracts, and the writer doesn't even mention Patrick Patterson who to me is their most promising asset.

pacer4ever
07-28-2011, 02:05 PM
The writer says it's not about future wins, although it goes into account.
I believe the writer means "most desirable roster situations". In that sense, obviously any GM would take Clips situation over Orlando - over most situations, tbh.

The same goes for us - most GMs would probably love to have Pacers' situation on their teams and add any pieces they want with all the cap.
It doesn't mean future wins, since cap can be screwed up very easily, but it is a very nice situation.

I do think Celtics are way too low. They still have a few years and they are close. And Rockets are too low. They have a ton of flexibility, no horrible contracts, and the writer doesn't even mention Patrick Patterson who to me is their most promising asset.

But Moe Williams the anchor of the Clippers? No :censored: way this writer doesnt know what he is talking about.

RLeWorm
07-28-2011, 02:12 PM
i think that's right. With one year playing together under their belt they will be a hell lot better this year. Then you add George Hill. if we pick up David West WE WILL BE CONTENDERS.

ballism
07-28-2011, 02:16 PM
But Moe Williams the anchor of the Clippers? No :censored: way this writer doesnt know what he is talking about.

By "anchors" I assume he means worst contracts. Mo is obviously the worst contract for the Clippers - especially judging by his game last year.

The writer should probably just write "Worst contracts" though. I mean, when you call Granger, Monta (both pretty good contracts) "anchors" and use the same word for Darko / Arenas / Turkoglu / Rashard Lewis... it looks confusing.

pacer4ever
07-28-2011, 02:18 PM
By "anchors" I assume he means worst contracts. Mo is obviously the worst contract for the Clippers - especially judging by his game last year.

The writer should probably just write "Worst contracts" though. I mean, when you call Granger, Monta (both pretty good contracts) "anchors" and use the same word for Darko / Arenas / Turkoglu / Rashard Lewis... it looks confusing.

Anchor should mean best player or leader this **** is :confused:

Heisenberg
07-28-2011, 02:32 PM
Anchor should mean best player or leader this **** is :confused:
By definition anchor means holding you down. Sometimes sports analogies are goofy and make no sense, the way "anchor" is usually used in the sports world is one of those times.

tennymf
07-28-2011, 03:20 PM
The author defines anchor as "bad contracts, ill-fitting pieces, aging stars who are owed more future money than they will be worth."

He lists Granger as an anchor. Then, in his analysis, he says Granger's contract "is both reasonable for his production and tradeable if need be."

Sounds contradictory to me.

OakMoses
07-28-2011, 03:25 PM
By definition anchor means holding you down. Sometimes sports analogies are goofy and make no sense, the way "anchor" is usually used in the sports world is one of those times.

The idea that an achor also keeps you where you want to be only adds to the confusion. You would think that CBS would have editors who said things like "the way you're using anchor is really confusing in this article, you should fix it." That's what I'd say to a 15 year old who turned this in for my English class.

McKeyFan
07-28-2011, 04:39 PM
Interesting to me that Tyler Hansbrough is not an asset.

Well, this quote provides a tiny bit of wiggle room, but seems to imply that Hans is an important piece:


Indiana has talented young players at virtually every position

ballism
07-28-2011, 05:18 PM
To be fair, there are plenty of good young players / prospects not mentioned in the article, many of them more coveted than Hansbrough.
Patrick Patterson, Taj Gibson, Omer Asik, Chase Buddinger, Gerald Henderson, JJ Hickson, Wesley Johnson and so on.

Tyler is in good company :p

Constellations
07-28-2011, 05:24 PM
<--- Fan of the Pacers :cool:

daschysta
07-28-2011, 05:26 PM
Also, though Danny was listed as an "anchor" (meaning contract holding the team down the most) he did mention that it is reasonable for his production and easily movable, i'm pretty sure anchor mostly just referred to the largest or worst contract on the team, of which we really have none. (feels good to say that)

vnzla81
07-28-2011, 06:10 PM
Any team that has Dhoward, CP3 or Dwill is better than anything the Pacers have, this is ridiculous :shakehead:

Eleazar
07-29-2011, 12:02 AM
I agree with the 10th place ranking both for the future and right now. The team we saw against the Bulls wasn't just a top 16 best team, that was a top 10 best team. I wouldn't go higher than 10th though.

pathil275
07-29-2011, 06:38 AM
Any team that has Dhoward, CP3 or Dwill is better than anything the Pacers have, this is ridiculous :shakehead:

yeah, but for how long do orlando, new jersey and new orleans have these aforementioned players? let them walk in free agency and the franchises are really bad.

beast23
07-29-2011, 12:15 PM
I think some of us are missing the writer's point. His order of rosters has nothing to do with W-L or how good he believes the team to be. It is simply a list of rosters in the order that he would want to take them given things he is considering (talent, redundancy, etc.).

With the things he is considering, I would think the Pacers probably would rank pretty high. We have tons of cap space and several players that are very tradeable.

I also believe that Posey's contract IS an asset. Certainly teams that are well under the cap are in best position to take on contracts from other teams, providing the other team with immediate cap relief. However, there will be other teams that will not necessarily be looking for cap relief for this season, but will want cap relief for the following (2012-2013) season... and that is where Posey's contract may come into play, especially if is playing half-way decent.

Regardless, I believe that the Pacers will attempt to deal Posey's contract in all cases before agreeing to just absorb a player within our cap space. Posey will be the first player mentioned by the Pacers in trying to trade for any expensive player.

Constellations
07-29-2011, 04:06 PM
Any team that has Dhoward, CP3 or Dwill is better than anything the Pacers have, this is ridiculous :shakehead:

The Nets? Your comments really worry me sometimes.

ballism
07-29-2011, 04:15 PM
The Nets? Your comments really worry me sometimes.

If D-Will commits, sure... Keep in mind, Nets have nearly as much cap space as us even with D-Will.
Deron, ton of cap and a decent cheap center in Brook Lopez. Nets are in a great situation if Deron sticks.

judicata
07-29-2011, 04:50 PM
I can't believe he used the word anchor like he did. Anchor is practically never used negatively in sports.

But Granger does make the most sense, if only because we have no bad Ks. Imagine how how it would have been to pick the anchor two years ago.

This team has such bad luck. The most exciting team in years, with plenty of young talent that can grow AND cap room to bring in some new guys AND a young new head coach back up by some great assistants AND a fantastic draft coming up next year.....and there may be no season. I would have paid good money to lock out one other Murphleavy years.

Haywoode Workman
07-30-2011, 04:20 PM
Anybody wanna post the whole list?

tennymf
08-03-2011, 11:25 AM
Anybody wanna post the whole list?

Here's the entire list with the commentary stripped:

30. Detroit Pistons
29. Orlando Magic
28. Milwaukee Bucks
27. New Jersey Nets
26. Toronto Raptors
25. Charlotte Bobcats
24. New Orleans Hornets
23. Phoenix Suns
22. Denver Nuggets
21. Washington Wizards
20. Sacramento Kings
19. Cleveland Cavaliers
18. Minnesota Timberwolves
17. Boston Celtics
16. San Antonio Spurs
15. Houston Rockets
14. Philadelphia 76ers
13. Atlanta Hawks
12. Utah Jazz
11. Golden State Warriors
10. Indiana Pacers
9. Portland Trail Blazers
8. Dallas Mavericks
7. Memphis Grizzlies
6. Los Angeles Lakers
5. Los Angeles Clippers
4. New York Knicks
3. Chicago Bulls
2. Oklahoma City Thunder
1. Miami Heat

pacergod2
08-03-2011, 11:53 AM
I can't believe the Nuggets are so low. I would love to have the options for that roster that they have. I love Afflalo and Chandler. I also think Gallinari is a special player, but he plays such an injury prone style right now. I love his effort and the way he plays. They have Lawson who is a heck of a good young PG. They have the cap space to make decisions on Nene, Kenyon, and JR Smith. Birdman is great for the contract he has. Their only bad contract is Al Harrington and the last two years of his deal are only 50% guaranteed.

Solid young roster with less than $100M owed in guaranteed contracts in the future. That is a solid foundation.

Also, I probably wouldn't have the Heat at the top. Well, at least not under the new CBA. The Heat will have no flexibility, no draft picks as cheap contracts, and will end up having to trade one of the big three. I still think Riley would be smart to trade Lebron for Dwight.

Reginald
08-03-2011, 04:29 PM
Regardless of whether I agree with the specifics of their breakdown, I do agree with the broader assessment that we're a #5 seed talent-wise.

Eleazar
08-03-2011, 05:04 PM
Regardless of whether I agree with the specifics of their breakdown, I do agree with the broader assessment that we're a #5 seed talent-wise.

The rankings actually have us at the 4th seed, as only the Heat, Knicks, and Bulls are ranked ahead of us in the East. Although yo uare right if you don't take into the differences in conference.