2011 CB draft: How does my team look?/division rankings

[StartOrien]

Hey, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice....and I won't get fooled again!

Don't Get Fooled AGAIN!

I'd say, head to head matchup, I still lean your way though.

You'll have like 4 billion words to change my mind in a week or so

[Kane3387]

To be transparent, i've swapped the jazz and blazers. IP's points about possible injuries , minute limitations is valid.

My depth is better then IPs though. My sixth man is capable of starting and will get starter's minutes. My backup Center is better. He only got 18 mpg last season where as the season before he got 31 mpg. I got him playing close to 30 mpg and in that time believe he can flirt with averaging a double double while never having a play run for him. I also have the best perimeter defender in Thabo for either team.

1) My backup center is Amar'e Stoudemire. Your backup center is not better. However, your backup center is probably better for your team than your actual center, who has one elite aspect of one part of the game. Everything else he's average to mediocre to bad at.

2) Thabo Sefelosha is a great perimeter defender. For those 18 minutes a game he's manning one of the swing positions, you've got a really good chance to shutting down my 3rd or 4th scoring option, while basically giving up all positibe offense production from him during that time.

He's a good salesman and he has to be. I mean he's banking on always hurt Bogut, don't like defense and have to play in a fast offense Amare (Bogut plays slow), nothing special Delfino, never played an NBA minute Williams, still has a lot to prove Lowry (not sold on him), never consistent lost all his minutes robin lopez, solid but never part of the future sessions, and bench player behind Thabo lots to prove Harden. Tons of Question Marks surround his team.

Ha, well that was a nice line there. I'm not even going to get into the lines about my team, because frankly, we've dosie-doe'd that dance already and I'm getting ready to leave work.

But the first one I will address, because its the second time you've said it. I let it go the first time, but it kind of nags at me. I love when people accuse other GM's of 'being a good salesman', because it automatically implies A) that my product is inferior, so I have to 'sell' it better, and B) that I'm being disingenuous. What people don't realize is that maybe I'm such a "Good Salesman" because I went out there and made "Good Trades", drafted players for mostly "Good Value", and put together a team that had a "Good Fit". Maybe I assembled a "Good Product" that I genuinely believe in and enjoy talking about. And maybe that "Good Product" is actually a lot better than you are admitting and/or believe.

Its an annoying cheap shot to make in this contest I think, that's all.

Not intended as a cheapshot at all. It's a complement. Selling is a great skill to have. So please don't take it the wrong way. I mean I am trying to sell my team too. Heck everyone is because no one, no IP you don't either, has the perfect team and has to.

This little rivalry we are building is turning out to be one of the funnest parts of this game for me. Still your team has a lot of Question marks and you are doing a nice job bringing all the stats you can to the table to make people overlook them  

Seriously though. Watching how people's opinions of our teams change based on our posts is good stuff. TP to you.

[StartOrien]

No one else going public w/ their rankings?

Too skurred?

[Fafnir]

No one else going public w/ their rankings?

Too skurred?

I have a half day tomorrow I'm planning my write up then, it will be public.

[Roy H.]

No one else going public w/ their rankings?

Too skurred?

I really respect the GMs who post their ballots and debate them without being too political.  Yes, you're potentially isolating some voters (those you voted out of the playoffs), but I think you earn respect that way.

[mgent]

Well I guess if the rosters thread isn't correct by now it's not gonna be.  I'm on my way to vote.

[StartOrien]

Well I guess if the rosters thread isn't correct by now it's not gonna be.  I'm on my way to vote.

The only thing I noticed is, ironically, WW's doesn't seem up to date. He's got Gasol at center.

[mgent]

Western Conferece:

Suns
Kings
Trailblazers
________
Nuggets
_________
Spurs
Jazz
Warriors
Lakers
________
Grizzlies
Mavericks
Thunder
Cavaliers






Eastern Conference:

__________
Bulls
Knicks
Pacers
__________
Wizards
Nets
__________
Celtics
Bucks
Magic
_________
Pistons
Heat
Hawks

[mgent]

The difference to me was the Sun's bench.

[StartOrien]

The difference to me was the Sun's bench.

Why so down on the Jazz?

[dark_lord]

my vote, from someone on outside looking in:


Eastern Conf.
1. Philadelphia 76ers- Love starting 5 and depth at the 1,2,3 spots
2. Chicago Bulls- Like their depth, solid D, and play hardnosed
3. New Jersey Nets-Deep at the 2,3,4,5 spots
4. Indiana Pacers-like starting 5 and like their frontcourt
5. Orlando Magic- love the depth at the 1 and 2 spot
6. Washington Wizards- like starters especially at 3,4,5 spots, weak at 2 spot
7. New York Knicks- solid overall, but not great
8. Atlanta Hawks-like ellis and lewis but there are too many ?’s to be seeded higher
9. Boston Celtics-like the depth in the backcourt and horford
10. Pandas- solid roster of role players but lack a “go to” type guy
11.Miami Heat- like melo and lopez but too many ?’s to be seeded higher than other teams
12.Detroit Pistons-younger team with some potential. No way can compete “now”

Western Conf.
1.   Memphis Grizzlies-drose, love the ray, prince, rose combo. Depth at 5 spot with “beefy” centers
2.   Sacramento Kings-lbj, to go along with depth at 4 spot and billups
3.   Oklahoma City Thunder-really like starters
4.   Utah Jazz-depth at 1 and 2 spots, nice starting lineup
5.   San Antonio Spurs-like starters and the depth at 1 and 2 spots
6.   Phoenix Suns-like starters but there are issues with depth
7.   Portland Trailblazers-really like depth at 5 spot, have solid depth at 2 spot, and like the starters
8.   Dallas Mavericks-like the combo of d12 and bargnani (legit 7 footers with different skills/game)
9.   Golden State Warriors-dirk, like depth at 1 and 3 spots
10.   Denver Nuggets-like the starting frontcourt, along with Johnson. Phil jackson
11.   Cleveland Cavs-weak and issues with depth, coach not established in nba
12.   Lakers/Clippers-too many ?’s and issues with depth

[mgent]

The difference to me was the Sun's bench.

Why so down on the Jazz?

Butler is a SF and not as high on the Jefferson/Garnett as others seem to be.  Jefferson is too much of a defensive sieve.  6th isn't bad in the better conference.

[mgent]

my vote, from someone on outside looking in:


Eastern Conf.
1. Philadelphia 76ers- Love starting 5 and depth at the 1,2,3 spots
2. Chicago Bulls- Like their depth, solid D, and play hardnosed
3. New Jersey Nets-Deep at the 2,3,4,5 spots
4. Indiana Pacers-like starting 5 and like their frontcourt
5. Orlando Magic- love the depth at the 1 and 2 spot
6. Washington Wizards- like starters especially at 3,4,5 spots, weak at 2 spot
7. New York Knicks- solid overall, but not great
8. Atlanta Hawks-like ellis and lewis but there are too many ?’s to be seeded higher
9. Boston Celtics-like the depth in the backcourt and horford
10. Pandas- solid roster of role players but lack a “go to” type guy
11.Miami Heat- like melo and lopez but too many ?’s to be seeded higher than other teams
12.Detroit Pistons-younger team with some potential. No way can compete “now”

Western Conf.
1.   Memphis Grizzlies-drose, love the ray, prince, rose combo. Depth at 5 spot with “beefy” centers
2.   Sacramento Kings-lbj, to go along with depth at 4 spot and billups
3.   Oklahoma City Thunder-really like starters
4.   Utah Jazz-depth at 1 and 2 spots, nice starting lineup
5.   San Antonio Spurs-like starters and the depth at 1 and 2 spots
6.   Phoenix Suns-like starters but there are issues with depth
7.   Portland Trailblazers-really like depth at 5 spot, have solid depth at 2 spot, and like the starters
8.   Dallas Mavericks-like the combo of d12 and bargnani (legit 7 footers with different skills/game)
9.   Golden State Warriors-dirk, like depth at 1 and 3 spots
10.   Denver Nuggets-like the starting frontcourt, along with Johnson. Phil jackson
11.   Cleveland Cavs-weak and issues with depth, coach not established in nba
12.   Lakers/Clippers-too many ?’s and issues with depth

Voted me first two years in a row??  This guy's a genius!  Please don't discount his vote this time.

[Roy H.]

my vote, from someone on outside looking in:


Eastern Conf.
1. Philadelphia 76ers- Love starting 5 and depth at the 1,2,3 spots
2. Chicago Bulls- Like their depth, solid D, and play hardnosed
3. New Jersey Nets-Deep at the 2,3,4,5 spots
4. Indiana Pacers-like starting 5 and like their frontcourt
5. Orlando Magic- love the depth at the 1 and 2 spot
6. Washington Wizards- like starters especially at 3,4,5 spots, weak at 2 spot
7. New York Knicks- solid overall, but not great
8. Atlanta Hawks-like ellis and lewis but there are too many ?’s to be seeded higher
9. Boston Celtics-like the depth in the backcourt and horford
10. Pandas- solid roster of role players but lack a “go to” type guy
11.Miami Heat- like melo and lopez but too many ?’s to be seeded higher than other teams
12.Detroit Pistons-younger team with some potential. No way can compete “now”

Western Conf.
1.   Memphis Grizzlies-drose, love the ray, prince, rose combo. Depth at 5 spot with “beefy” centers
2.   Sacramento Kings-lbj, to go along with depth at 4 spot and billups
3.   Oklahoma City Thunder-really like starters
4.   Utah Jazz-depth at 1 and 2 spots, nice starting lineup
5.   San Antonio Spurs-like starters and the depth at 1 and 2 spots
6.   Phoenix Suns-like starters but there are issues with depth
7.   Portland Trailblazers-really like depth at 5 spot, have solid depth at 2 spot, and like the starters
8.   Dallas Mavericks-like the combo of d12 and bargnani (legit 7 footers with different skills/game)
9.   Golden State Warriors-dirk, like depth at 1 and 3 spots
10.   Denver Nuggets-like the starting frontcourt, along with Johnson. Phil jackson
11.   Cleveland Cavs-weak and issues with depth, coach not established in nba
12.   Lakers/Clippers-too many ?’s and issues with depth

It's fascinating to see how voters who haven't lived and breathed the draft see teams.  Well done, d_l.

[StartOrien]

my vote, from someone on outside looking in:


Eastern Conf.
1. Philadelphia 76ers- Love starting 5 and depth at the 1,2,3 spots
2. Chicago Bulls- Like their depth, solid D, and play hardnosed
3. New Jersey Nets-Deep at the 2,3,4,5 spots
4. Indiana Pacers-like starting 5 and like their frontcourt
5. Orlando Magic- love the depth at the 1 and 2 spot
6. Washington Wizards- like starters especially at 3,4,5 spots, weak at 2 spot
7. New York Knicks- solid overall, but not great
8. Atlanta Hawks-like ellis and lewis but there are too many ?’s to be seeded higher
9. Boston Celtics-like the depth in the backcourt and horford
10. Pandas- solid roster of role players but lack a “go to” type guy
11.Miami Heat- like melo and lopez but too many ?’s to be seeded higher than other teams
12.Detroit Pistons-younger team with some potential. No way can compete “now”

Western Conf.
1.   Memphis Grizzlies-drose, love the ray, prince, rose combo. Depth at 5 spot with “beefy” centers
2.   Sacramento Kings-lbj, to go along with depth at 4 spot and billups
3.   Oklahoma City Thunder-really like starters
4.   Utah Jazz-depth at 1 and 2 spots, nice starting lineup
5.   San Antonio Spurs-like starters and the depth at 1 and 2 spots
6.   Phoenix Suns-like starters but there are issues with depth
7.   Portland Trailblazers-really like depth at 5 spot, have solid depth at 2 spot, and like the starters
8.   Dallas Mavericks-like the combo of d12 and bargnani (legit 7 footers with different skills/game)
9.   Golden State Warriors-dirk, like depth at 1 and 3 spots
10.   Denver Nuggets-like the starting frontcourt, along with Johnson. Phil jackson
11.   Cleveland Cavs-weak and issues with depth, coach not established in nba
12.   Lakers/Clippers-too many ?’s and issues with depth

Thanks for voting DL, clearly took a good look at this.