Interesting that Chad Ford ranked LA by far the last among the 5 teams. In fact, he has them 23rd among all 30 teams. What's really curious, to me, is that he has the Rockets 24th. And the moves by those teams are just mirrors of each other. He thinks LA made a mistake in going for Artest over Ariza ("I know Artest is a talent, but he's unreliable. Why the Lakers would pass the torch from Ariza, who was just coming into his own, to Artest is a risk I just don't understand. And if somehow Odom decides to bolt for a team like Cleveland for the midlevel exception, the Lakers will have taken a big step backward") but he also doesn't see Houston's point ("And so far the best the Rockets have been able to do is sign Ariza. While he's a talented, athletic wing who in the long run will be an upgrade over Artest, in the short run it's not clear exactly how he'll fit. Put all that together and it looks like the Rockets could be a team in free fall in the West next season"). I guess, though, he factored losing Yao into Houston's offseason, a bit unfair if you're just grading moves.
His rankings of the relevant teams:
1. San Antonio
5. Boston
6. Orlando (he really likes swapping out Turkoglu for Carter, and makes no real mention of Lee or Alston, though he does say his ranking would drop if they lose Gortat who he lists as "in limbo" but calls a "key addition" to Dallas elsewhere)
8. Cleveland
23. Los Angeles
What really bothers me, though, is that he says the Pistons had the third best offseason. Really? Paying a guy who will never be an effective starter $50 mil for 5 years and another guy who hasn't shown he'll be an effective player $40 mil over 5 years is a great offseason? When neither of them fills your two biggest positions of need - power forward and center?