Who will finish with the best record?

[Fafnir]

I gotta go with the Celtics because they have played through the toughest part of their schedule whereas the other teams haven't. All three of the other teams have long road stretches against good teams to play through. What the Celtics just went through all these teams will go through to some extent. I think the C's have it out of their system and are ahead of the game because of it.

C's get the best record and home court by winning 62-63 games but it will be close with the Lakers and Cavs right on their heels.

a little worried about the report of Redd to the Cavs...a friend of mine and i have talked for a while about how if the Cavs had targeted Redd instead of Hughes the Cavs could already have a Title...

They did target Redd over Hughes the summer of 2005. The Cavs offered the maximum contract 5 year contract they could offer given their cap space. Redd chose the Bucks because they could offer him more money per year and added a sixth year onto the deal. It was essentially 70 million versus 91 million for Redd. Easy choice.

Only after Redd signed did they quickly come to terms with Larry Hughes.

[winsomme]

I gotta go with the Celtics because they have played through the toughest part of their schedule whereas the other teams haven't. All three of the other teams have long road stretches against good teams to play through. What the Celtics just went through all these teams will go through to some extent. I think the C's have it out of their system and are ahead of the game because of it.

C's get the best record and home court by winning 62-63 games but it will be close with the Lakers and Cavs right on their heels.

nick, the Cs Feb schedule is off the charts hard....they only have 4 home games the whole month and two of them are against the Lakers and the Spurs....add to that a 6 game all over the country road trip....yikes.

this will seriously test the mettle of this team...

as for best record, so hard to say....gonna be nip and tuck with the Cs, Cavs and Lakeshow...

a little worried about the report of Redd to the Cavs...a friend of mine and i have talked for a while about how if the Cavs had targeted Redd instead of Hughes the Cavs could already have a Title...

While I agree that February isn't exactly an easy month I don't think it's nearly as brutal a stretch of the schedule as the Celtics have had from mid December until now.

Between Dec 11th and Jan 11th the Celtics play 17 games in 32 days. 11 of those games were on the road.

In February they play only 12 games in 28 days and their two toughest games are at home. They have 5 gimme games and 7 tough ones. But they also have a whole week off and between Feb 8th and Feb 22nd, a span of 15 days, they only play 5 games.

They are going to be able to get a bunch of rest and practice time in Feb that they haven't be able to get over the last 5-6 weeks. February won't be easy but I still feel it will be much easier than what they have already been through.

Their toughest part of the schedule is over. If they make it through that six game road trip in February with a winning record, I say they win the best record.

well, i can't really say whether it is more or less difficult than any other stretch of the season, but i'm not sure that matters. it is a brutal month however you slice it.

having your two toughest games at home in a month when you are away most of it is a double edged sword because then your home games aren't gimmes...

and the road trip while having rest days built in (a big chunk being the All Star break which actually won't be rest for all)...they're gonna be needed because the team is all over the country during that stretch - which includes five away games against likely WC playoff teams.

and ends with a pain in the neck IND which leads directly into DET, CLE and ORL...

this is going to be rough...but that said, it's probably better that way because this team will hopefully be primed for the playoffs after that....


always gotta look on the bright side.

[winsomme]

I gotta go with the Celtics because they have played through the toughest part of their schedule whereas the other teams haven't. All three of the other teams have long road stretches against good teams to play through. What the Celtics just went through all these teams will go through to some extent. I think the C's have it out of their system and are ahead of the game because of it.

C's get the best record and home court by winning 62-63 games but it will be close with the Lakers and Cavs right on their heels.

a little worried about the report of Redd to the Cavs...a friend of mine and i have talked for a while about how if the Cavs had targeted Redd instead of Hughes the Cavs could already have a Title...

They did target Redd over Hughes the summer of 2005. The Cavs offered the maximum contract 5 year contract they could offer given their cap space. Redd chose the Bucks because they could offer him more money per year and added a sixth year onto the deal. It was essentially 70 million versus 91 million for Redd. Easy choice.

Only after Redd signed did they quickly come to terms with Larry Hughes.

i thought they signed Hughes before Redd signed....definitely could be wrong about that, but that's my recollection...

[Fafnir]

I gotta go with the Celtics because they have played through the toughest part of their schedule whereas the other teams haven't. All three of the other teams have long road stretches against good teams to play through. What the Celtics just went through all these teams will go through to some extent. I think the C's have it out of their system and are ahead of the game because of it.

C's get the best record and home court by winning 62-63 games but it will be close with the Lakers and Cavs right on their heels.

a little worried about the report of Redd to the Cavs...a friend of mine and i have talked for a while about how if the Cavs had targeted Redd instead of Hughes the Cavs could already have a Title...

They did target Redd over Hughes the summer of 2005. The Cavs offered the maximum contract 5 year contract they could offer given their cap space. Redd chose the Bucks because they could offer him more money per year and added a sixth year onto the deal. It was essentially 70 million versus 91 million for Redd. Easy choice.

Only after Redd signed did they quickly come to terms with Larry Hughes.

i thought they signed Hughes before Redd signed....definitely could be wrong about that, but that's my recollection...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2103569

and

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bucks/2005-07-07-redd-contract_x.htm

The tone and dates of the story indicate that they offered essentially the same deal to Redd first, it was all they had. After he decided to stay in Milwaukee they offered that money to Hughes.

[winsomme]

I gotta go with the Celtics because they have played through the toughest part of their schedule whereas the other teams haven't. All three of the other teams have long road stretches against good teams to play through. What the Celtics just went through all these teams will go through to some extent. I think the C's have it out of their system and are ahead of the game because of it.

C's get the best record and home court by winning 62-63 games but it will be close with the Lakers and Cavs right on their heels.

a little worried about the report of Redd to the Cavs...a friend of mine and i have talked for a while about how if the Cavs had targeted Redd instead of Hughes the Cavs could already have a Title...

They did target Redd over Hughes the summer of 2005. The Cavs offered the maximum contract 5 year contract they could offer given their cap space. Redd chose the Bucks because they could offer him more money per year and added a sixth year onto the deal. It was essentially 70 million versus 91 million for Redd. Easy choice.

Only after Redd signed did they quickly come to terms with Larry Hughes.

i thought they signed Hughes before Redd signed....definitely could be wrong about that, but that's my recollection...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2103569

and

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/bucks/2005-07-07-redd-contract_x.htm

The tone and dates of the story indicate that they offered essentially the same deal to Redd first, it was all they had. After he decided to stay in Milwaukee they offered that money to Hughes.

i remember the Cavs had something like 30 mil under the cap....not sure what they offered Redd.

[Fafnir]

They had to resign Big Z that off season too. I believe that ate up the rest of their cap room.

[winsomme]

They had to resign Big Z that off season too. I believe that ate up the rest of their cap room.

yeah, they had a huge amount of money to spend. I thin you're right about Z, but they could go over the cap to sign him....

I wonder how much LeBron pushed for Hughes at that point?

[Fafnir]

They had to resign Big Z that off season too. I believe that ate up the rest of their cap room.

yeah, they had a huge amount of money to spend. I thin you're right about Z, but they could go over the cap to sign him....

I wonder how much LeBron pushed for Hughes at that point?

Since the Bucks offered max money Redd wasn't leaving.

Cap calculations aren't my strong suit either. But regardless the Larry Hughes signing sucked. On that we can agree  .

The Mo Williams one has worked surprisingly well for them. I really wonder if making the move will help/hurt them. Either way I'm nervous about the Cavs no matter what happens between now and the playoffs!

[winsomme]

They had to resign Big Z that off season too. I believe that ate up the rest of their cap room.

yeah, they had a huge amount of money to spend. I thin you're right about Z, but they could go over the cap to sign him....

I wonder how much LeBron pushed for Hughes at that point?

Since the Bucks offered max money Redd wasn't leaving.

Cap calculations aren't my strong suit either. But regardless the Larry Hughes signing sucked. On that we can agree  .

The Mo Williams one has worked surprisingly well for them. I really wonder if making the move will help/hurt them. Either way I'm nervous about the Cavs no matter what happens between now and the playoffs!

wasn't Ray Allen a FA that off season too....

interesting that we ended up with Ray and they could now end up with Redd..

as for Larry, man...he had that great season the year before with the Wiz and seriously cashed in...big problem for him was injuries. and since he couldn't reliably knock down the three, he really couldn't help open the floor for LBJ when he was in there.

and that contract was paralyzing to their ability to get other guys in.

i feel bad for him some. he seems like a good guy and i do think plays hard, it just never came together for him. now he's having trouble in CHI. i hope he gets moved to a team where he could play.

but the combo of the botched Boozer deal followed by the Hughes signing has basically kept a title out of CLE until now..

and now i too am worried about that team...mostly because of the defense they play.

[Fafnir]

They had to resign Big Z that off season too. I believe that ate up the rest of their cap room.

yeah, they had a huge amount of money to spend. I thin you're right about Z, but they could go over the cap to sign him....

I wonder how much LeBron pushed for Hughes at that point?

Since the Bucks offered max money Redd wasn't leaving.

Cap calculations aren't my strong suit either. But regardless the Larry Hughes signing sucked. On that we can agree  .

The Mo Williams one has worked surprisingly well for them. I really wonder if making the move will help/hurt them. Either way I'm nervous about the Cavs no matter what happens between now and the playoffs!

wasn't Ray Allen a FA that off season too....

interesting that we ended up with Ray and they could now end up with Redd..

Yeah Ray Allen was a FA and signed his current contract with Seattle. Their defensive was very good last year. Its the fact that they've improved their offense that is worrisome.

[celticmaestro]

Homer vote. Sorry.

[illantari]

When you think about it, we're only half a game behind our record last year at this point (33-9 vs. 34-8).  I have a really hard time believing that 4 teams will finish 65-17 or better (is that even possible?).  This year really is a bit of an aberration in terms of these four teams' records.

[Fafnir]

When you think about it, we're only half a game behind our record last year at this point (33-9 vs. 34-8 ).  I have a really hard time believing that 4 teams will finish 65-17 or better (is that even possible?).  This year really is a bit of an aberration in terms of these four teams' records.

Yes it is possible, the number of common games between the teams isn't high enough to rule out multiple 65 game winners. It is very unlikely though. Usually one or two teams will win 60 in a given year. Especially since teams that could reach that barrier often lock up playoff position with many games to go.

This year the race in the east is going to be very tight so I can easily see the Cavs/Celts/Magic all hitting 60. Though I'd say just two is likely.