So Far, The East Has Gotten Weaker, Isn't That A Good Thing For The Us??

[celticinorlando]

To me the top teams in order are: Cavs, Boston, Wiz, Bucks

the bottom four depends on what happens with Raptors, Heat and Sixers

I think the Bulls, Pacers and Hawks all took major steps back. The 7th and 8th seeds in the east will be under .500

[Kaz]

Not a good thing for our Brooklyn pick. Don't want them sneaking in. Also, chances for better record, means not having worst records in the NBA, so not good lottery chances.

The Nets have no incentive to get better this offseason because in a year they can finally begin to tank for lottery picks that they get to actually keep.  It would disastrous for them if they fall out of the top 5 in the 2019 draft because they decided to sign the likes of Gallinari or Rudy Gay just so that they could become a mediocre team.

[pearljammer10]

If we can sign a good FA and make a trade then we can easily be a contender in the weak east. If we go as is we're still beatable by the Cavs.

[PhoSita]

Sure, the Celts can be a one seed with the point differential of a middle of the road playoff team again.

[BostonClamCrowdah]

If we can sign a good FA and make a trade then we can easily be a contender in the weak east. If we go as is we're still beatable by the Cavs.

"Were still beatable by the Cavs"

LOL WUT

you make it sound like we are the superior team to Cleveland

Did you miss the ECF? They toyed with us. They are head and shoulders better

As is, there is a better chance you get a max contract from Cleveland than Boston beating Cleveland next season

[Witch-King]

Thanks for responding, guys. As many have pointed out, we may still not have the horses to beat Cleveland if we don't sign a big name free agent, though we do have valuable assets so if we had another really good regular season and playoff run against an eastern conference that is currently looking very weak while developing our young talent we can improve the value of our trade assets and we may be able to convince players to join our team the following season or even during this next season. I'm also interested in which of the stacked Western Conference teams won't even make the playoffs. I don't want to make a new topic, but here's my estimation as to how the seeding in the Western Conference might play out (obviously I could be completely wrong):

1. Warriors
2. Spurs
3. Rockets
4. Thunder
5. Grizzlies
6. Trail Blazers
7. Timberwolves
8. Pelicans

This is obviously subject to change and based on whether the Celtics were to get Gordon Hayward, which I hope we will. Teams like the Clippers, Jazz, Lakers, Mavericks, Nuggets, or some of the teams at the bottom of my list may all be fighting for coveted playoff spots in a conference that just got a new influx of talent, meanwhile the Celtics could have an easier time in the East. Hopefully, valuable free agents realize this and start to see Boston as a valuable destination. Your thoughts??

[max215]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

[pearljammer10]

If we can sign a good FA and make a trade then we can easily be a contender in the weak east. If we go as is we're still beatable by the Cavs.

"Were still beatable by the Cavs"

LOL WUT

you make it sound like we are the superior team to Cleveland

Did you miss the ECF? They toyed with us. They are head and shoulders better

As is, there is a better chance you get a max contract from Cleveland than Boston beating Cleveland next season

Yeah....What do you think "we're still beatable by the Cavs" means?

If I need to dumb it down and translate for you it means the Cavs can still beat us.

[Witch-King]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

[max215]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

[Witch-King]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

[max215]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Fair enough, I guess. It's hard to see this as a bad thing for us, but I hesitate to call it a big win.

[Roy H.]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

[greece66]

it's good for the lakers pick.

doesnt affect much what happens at the top of the EC.

[Witch-King]

How does the teams that were already worse than us getting worse benefit us?

Well, for one it means we can have an even better record than last season. If those teams end up being worse than last year we may drop even less games to them, thus increasing our chances of having a really good record.

I guess, but we already dominated against sub-500 teams, which is how we won 53 games despite struggling against top-tier teams. Really, what's the difference between winning 53 and getting the one seed and winning 58 and getting the one seed, yet losing to the Cavs regardless? Realistically, it'd be the difference between picking 29th instead of 27th. Nothing else.

Because like I said, if players see us doing really well they might want to come to Boston, perhaps even during the middle of the season, and we have so many assets in which to make good trades.

Can that cut both ways? Meaning, can players look at our history and conclude that when it's time to add front tier talent, Danny will balk?

I trust Danny. He pulled out all the stops in trying to sign Paul George and the Pacers were likely either too salty after last season or George didn't want to be traded here, so they traded George for a lot less value than what we would've given them which in turn is making the Eastern Conference less competitive as a whole if you look at moves other teams in the East have made.