DALLAS MAVERICKS: C
It was cool seeing the Mavs make it to the big dance last season because when they're up against most squads, they're were the most-entertaining team in the league. That shit didn't work against Boston tho. So they were certain issues that Dallas needed to mitigate to take themselves to that next level.
At the top of the list was finding a solution Doncic's endurance issues, how, during the Finals for instance, he eventually ran out of steam against a team that actually knows how to play effective perimeter defense over extended periods. And I'm not overly confident that the addition of Klay or the re-addition of Dinwiddie is going to solve that problem.
I may be wrong. If Dinwiddie is doing his thing, the coaching staff could then use the opportunity to give Doncic longer rests. Someone like Thompson, if his shot was on, would have definitely helped Dallas in the Finals, but not likely to the point where they could have beat the Celtics.
It's also painful, from a Mavs' fan perspective, to watch Jones Jr. go. When Dallas was able to play above the rim (i.e. against their conference rivals in the playoffs) they were virtually unbeatable, and Derrick was a big part of that dynamic. It's always hurtful when the pairing of a superstar PG who is an exceptional passer coupled with an amazing dunker is broken up. But maybe Jones will be able to build up a similar rapport with the Beard.
During this offseason Dallas, by the looks of things, failed to upgrade in a manner that could potentially topple Boston. The Celtics specialty is perimeter defense, and the Mavericks, in their wisdom, most notably decided to go out and add perimeter players. With Lively gone and basically being replaced with a couple of Gs, good ones though not allstars, there's no way Dallas can be as entertaining as they were last season.
HOUSTON ROCKETS: C
The Rockets have sorta developed this losing culture, but at least a couple of seasons ago they were a good watch, regardless of who they played against. Nowadays? Like I don't even know. It's sorta like, in a way, the air of excitement got sucked out of this team in a way.
From a competitive standpoint, Fred VanVleet was a fine addition. I wouldn't be surprised if Houston missing the playoffs was some sort of higher-up decision. But the thing is that - this is my argument. If you have a team that's young and exciting, even if they lose, keep it like that. F*ck is a timeline anyway? 'We're going to play it smart, devalue some of our young assets and rather prioritize the addition of quality veterans who can help us win now.' Help you win what, Houston?
The last thing any braintrust wants is having to decide whether to play vets or developing players. If you have young players with allstar potential, then ideally they're playing behind veterans who are maybe on the verge of winning a championship. All things considered, such does not appear to be the case with the Rockets.
Going back to last offseason, Brooks was a good addition for what they were trying to build. Defensive players like him, who can galvanize an entire team, are priceless. But as for Fred, he may have to go - and not in exchange for a present player(s) unless he fits the timeline of the rest of the roster, someone to make up for the departure of KPJ.
MEMPHIS GRIZZLIES: F
What really broke my heart with the Grizzlies wasn't so much that Ja Morant-gun shit but him getting seriously injured like immediately upon returning. I hope said "injury" was just an excuse for the braintrust to shut him down during what they already perceived as a lost season. But if not, smh.
Just a couple seasons ago, Memphis was poised to be the next big thing in the Western Conference, nah, the entire NBA. Instead, OKC managed to steal their thunder. And I'm not overly confident that the Grizzlies are going to be able to reclaim it, with their most-noteworthy transaction this offseason actually being the loss of Ziaire Williams. This is after they already lost Xavier Tillman, who went on to immediately win a championship, earlier in the season.
Aging + lack of roster retention usually does not equal progression. I still believe that Morant may be a second coming of Jordan. But maybe he needs to work harder in terms of not putting the organization in a position whereas, I don't even know how to put it.
NEW ORLEANS PELICANS: B-
Entering into this season, if Brandon Ingram sticks around, I think it's safe to say that on paper the Pelicans have the best starting five in the league. But of course, us mature NBA analysts know that talent doesn't always equal success. And that's esp true on a team like NOP, where you have star players with overlapping skillsets, coupled with a style of play that is more or less positionless.
I don't necessary see why the Pelicans - or even the Hawks before them - would, given their rosters, bother to acquire the services of Dejounte Murray, unless they intend to actually use him as a (starting) PG. It's the same like when ATL acquired him a couple of offseasons ago - okay, now how is the roster going to be structured? Where does Murray fit in alongside the other team's scorers - two, if not all three of whom are iso-oriented?
And then, who are they planning to take back for Ingram anyway? I'm not in favor of breaking up this roster, but it's going to take a helluva coach to make it work.
If this were a team during the 1990s, when players knew how to stay in their lane so to speak, it would be like yeah, they're contenders. But in today's NBA, when most coaches are more or tokens, I mean I don't even know off the top of my head who's coaching NOP. But I don't remember it being a name like, you know what I'm saying?
SAN ANTONIO SPURS: A
I was really impressed with the Spurs' offseason because first of all, they were able to make their moves quickly. Secondly, they're staying in their lane. Wemby is already one of the best players in NBA, but it's not like 'hey, let's go overboard and try to win now'. But at the same time, it isn't like 'let's surround our star with a team that doesn't know how to win'. You know what I mean? Like moderation type shit, going out and getting a couple of older players that makes the team more, not less, must watch.
If I could give out a "Offseason Player of the Year" award, that'd go to CP3. I've been saying for years that how some older star players need to learn how to team up with their younger counterparts, playing for up-and-coming teams instead of chasing instant championships - a strategy that doesn't work most of the time anyway.
I also approve of the addition of Harrison Barnes, the type of player who not only contributes but also seems to bring a sense of stability and order to any system. This should be more exciting than last season, so long as the Spurs don't suffer any major injuries. And who knows? With another star or two and a well-rounded bench, there you go, contender time. Maybe "the Neck" will walk away with a ring after all.
CONCLUSION
If not for the Spurs and Pelicans, the Southwest would have a had a painfully boring offseason. This current Spurs' roster, under Popovich, could prove viably competitive, playoff-worthy even. As for New Orleans, even though they have a helluva roster, the excitement isn't quite there because it'll take a basketball mastermind, the type of which isn't like readily available, to make all those high-grade pieces work in tandem.
No comments:
Post a Comment