CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Fireworks_Boom! on March 20, 2017, 11:48:07 AM
-
I hope for option 2 (Next Year). I don't have the stomach for drafting a young team and watching it develop. It's time to cash in the assets.
We'd have to lose a couple players (Olynyk, Johnson, Green) but it is possible we could trade for a max (Butler in a package for Bradley + Zeller + Brooklyn 2017) and sign a max (Griffin).
New Team:
PG: Thomas
SG: Smart
SF: Butler
PF: Griffin
C: Horford
Bench: Crowder, Rozier, Brown, Yabusele, Zizic, Nader, Jackson, Vet Min (3 point specialist), Vet Min (Big), 2017 2nd Round Draft Pick
-
4+ years
-
Impossible to say. The team they have is good enough to go on a run if the top teams have untimely injuries.
But you never know how long it'll be before your team will be in a position to beat the best opponents in the league in a seven games series until youve already got that caliber of team in place. Could be next year, could be a decade from now.
-
I'd say 2 years honestly, once everything is sort of cleared up (like who stays out of IT/Smart/Bradley/KO, who we draft, etc. etc.)
The scenario for the "next year option" is ideal but I think it's more likely if we got anyone, it would be Hayward not Griffin (who likely stays put), and that trade for Butler looks like an overpay now...
-
Agreed. We could sign Hayward without subtracting parts. I could also see Amir Johnson returning on a smaller contract.
I'd say 2 years honestly, once everything is sort of cleared up (like who stays out of IT/Smart/Bradley/KO, who we draft, etc. etc.)
The scenario for the "next year option" is ideal but I think it's more likely if we got anyone, it would be Hayward not Griffin (who likely stays put), and that trade for Butler looks like an overpay now...
-
One splash is all it takes. Hopefully the right opportunity presents itself and DA is ready to pounce. I think this team can contend as soon as next season.
-
It may be never. We have some decent pieces in place, plus a few more assets, but contending will depend on our ability to acquire a star. There isn't really one capable to taking us to that level on the roster right now.
So how do we get one? Maybe we get lucky and draft one. Maybe we don't.
-
You can develop a young team, and sign a free agent or two.
One of our problems is we have some guys that think of themselves as starter material only, and will not adjust to anything but being a starter. If they don't start they'll take their marbles and go home.
imagine signing Hayward, keeping Crowder, drafting Fultz or Ball and keeping IT.
-
It seems the bar is set pretty high. There need to be almost 4 starters who dominate their positions, and at least 2 that could lead their own elite team, and 2 others that could be their sidekick, and then the bench seems to require either an elite role player glue guy, past prime allstar, 6poy, etc, or several.
We have a lot to prove to consider this roster likely to even hang in the second round.
A lot needs to go right, but I could see a lot of our players on a contender, AB, Crowder, Horford, Smart. JJ. but the key requisite pieces aren't there: more elite scoring and rebounding.
-
The trade proposed for Jimmy Butler can't be done since Zeller won't be on the team anymore once the season ends.
-
The trade proposed for Jimmy Butler can't be done since Zeller won't be on the team anymore once the season ends.
Doesn't he have an option though? He signed a 2 year deal, second year not guaranteed I believe.
-
The trade proposed for Jimmy Butler can't be done since Zeller won't be on the team anymore once the season ends.
Doesn't he have an option though? He signed a 2 year deal, second year not guaranteed I believe.
In order to sign Griffin, Zeller's contract option would be declined therefore making him not on the team. If Zeller's option is picked up and then he is traded for Butler, there is not enough room to sign a max free agent.
-
I think sooner than later (though not this year). I didn't vote because I didn't see the point of putting the scenarios with the number of years. I could choose a number of years but not agree with the pathway given.
-
As early as next year.
-
They could win it all this year.
-
You can develop a young team, and sign a free agent or two.
POne of our problems is we have some guys that think of themselves as starter material only, and will not adjust to anything but being a starter. If they don't start they'll take their marbles and go home.
imagine signing Hayward, keeping Crowder, drafting Fultz or Ball and keeping IT.
Where do you get the notion that our starters are that selfish? That's just uncalled for.
-
I think the better question is: How long before they consistently contend for a championship every year?
-
At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.
-
I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile. Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players.
-
At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.
At this point you better back up a ridiculous post like that with some sort of reasoning.
-
What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.
It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.
My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.
With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.
-
At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.
lol
-
At this point, I am unconvinced that a championship is ownership's goal.
To be fair I don't think any of us expected a championship this year or next anyways.
Unless they somehow land Griffin/Hayward (FA) as well as trade for Butler Draft Night before FA.
-
Surprised a lot of people think this team is 3+ years away.
Maybe 2, but longer than 3?
I trust Ainge will sign someone or make a blockbuster trade within next year's trade deadline. If not then yeah I'll agree.
I'm glad Ainge didn't overpay for Butler right now though. The price could lower on draft day.
Lebron exists yes, but at age 34-35 will he be this super effective with the minutes he's playing nowadays and will play all through the playoffs?
Add a star somehow, keep the young core going and we could break through.
-
They're the second seed in the east. They are contending right now. I'm not saying they are legit favorites or anything. Obviously the Cavs, Warriors, and Spurs are probably 95% likely to win this year. But crazier things can happen. The Rockets weren't supposed to be in the Finals in 86. Everyone thought it would be the Lakers, but the Rockets still took the Celts to 6 games. What if Bird had gone down in game 1? Maybe the Rockets shock the world and win a championship in a year everyone thought it was going to the Celts or Lakers. All it takes is LeBron to turn an ankle and have Durant's injury flare up and the Celts could steal one this year. Not likely but not impossible.
In terms of being a more legitimate contender on the level of the Cavs, Warriors, and Spurs, I expect that to happen next year. Let's say we win 53 games and advance to the 2nd round or ECF this year. We are set up to without a doubt add 1 marquee player to that team (draft) and likely a 2nd (FA or trade). You add 2 marquee players to our current core, and you should be talking about a team winning 55-60 games next year, a 1 or 2 seed in the East, and a legit top tier contender.
-
Two and a half more months. ;D
-
I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile. Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players.
I think you mat be getting some groups intermingled. There is a large portion of bloggers that feel we should build the next contender on youth but within that group there are also a great many that actually think that after being drafted, a player can become a playoff difference making star within 2-3 years. There are a bunch of posters like myself that advocate not to get your hopes to high to become playoff stars and lead us to contendership until 5-6 years after they are drafted, but I think I am in the minority.
-
I find it odd that 3 years has more votes than 4+ years given how vocal this board is about young players not being able to compete for a championship for awhile. Thus, shouldn't all those people be voting for 4+ years and not 3 years since both are premised on building a team around rookie contract players.
I think you mat be getting some groups intermingled. There is a large portion of bloggers that feel we should build the next contender on youth but within that group there are also a great many that actually think that after being drafted, a player can become a playoff difference making star within 2-3 years. There are a bunch of posters like myself that advocate not to get your hopes to high to become playoff stars and lead us to contendership until 5-6 years after they are drafted, but I think I am in the minority.
That may be and I know Boston is a bit different in that it can build a team around youth and keep some veterans (though I'm of the belief most veterans really need to be gone for the young guys to really hit their potential). I just can't see how Boston is realistically a real contender in 3 years by building a team around the young guys. 4 years certainly possible if Fulz/Ball/Jackson is as good as advertised and Brown continues his growth, but 3 years just seems strange to me (if you go the build around the youth model).
-
Again, I'll pose the question:
How do you define a contender?
-
What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.
It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.
My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.
With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.
I could go with that definition, but I think you need to advance beyond the 1st round as well. So my definition is more strict but in the same ballpark.
-
I think we are contending now, but I'm not sure the odds are in line with the spirit of the question. I think the most likely answer is next year.
We are team that is currently constituted to win 55 or so games, and will win a few less this year due to a lot of missed games by starters due to nagging but not degrading injuries. Next year, we would likely be a bit better just due to experience together and individual growth.
If we just draft a top pick, we can also expect a better bench. Brown, Zizic, Yabusele and a top rookie won't become stars next year, but they should improve on our current bench.
If we get a free agent like Hayward, or Griffin, I think we are a 60+ win team. We still might not be a favorite, but we will be considered clearly top 4.
If we cash in some future resources and also get another all-star caliber player, we have as good a chance as anybody.
I think the Cavs, the Warriors and the Spurs are awesome, but somewhat fragile teams. With just a bit of luck, I think they can be beaten.
-
4+ years
Oh Clenchy...you are a card!!!
;D ;D ;D
-
What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.
It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.
My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.
With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.
I could go with that definition, but I think you need to advance beyond the 1st round as well. So my definition is more strict but in the same ballpark.
The the issue with that definition is you're using the playoff results to define the contending status. If the results that were all that matter, were the 2011 Spurs (61 wins), the '07 Mavs (67 wins) and the '94 Sonics (63 wins) not considered contenders because they didn't make it out of the first round of the playoffs? They were some of the odds on favorites to make the NBA championships those years. No one before the playoffs would have said on those years those teams weren't contenders. Using the results to justify the definition seems a bit ex post facto.
Thus I attempted to define whether a team was a contender at the point the playoffs started and when looking at teams that won the NBA championships in the last 20 years (which is a high bar as I probably should have looked at teams that made it to the finals) those were the parameters that all winners had. The Cs will fall right in with those groups this year.
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
Your definition leaves out the 2005 Miami Heat as a contender. Their odds were similar to the Cs this year with a 64 win Pistons team, a 63 win Spurs team and a 60 win Mavs team all looking like juggernauts. That's fine if that's your definition but I find it somewhat odd that someone would create a definition that leaves out recent NBA champions.
But you're defining contender really as probable NBA finalist. To me that's a different definition than a contender. That's a front runner.
-
Fultz on the way .
;D
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
Your definition leaves out the 2005 Miami Heat as a contender. Their odds were similar to the Cs this year with a 64 win Pistons team, a 63 win Spurs team and a 60 win Mavs team all looking like juggernauts. That's fine if that's your definition but I find it somewhat odd that someone would create a definition that leaves out recent NBA champions.
But you're defining contender really as probable NBA finalist. To me that's a different definition than a contender. That's a front runner.
TP!
By Moranis' definition I think it will be next year if we sign Hayward. If Durant and Love aren't 100% for the playoffs I could see us being a contender this year.
This team has a really high ceiling (competitive against elite teams in the playoffs if those teams aren't 100%) but also a really low floor (I could envision them losing in the first round too)
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
Your definition leaves out the 2005 Miami Heat as a contender. Their odds were similar to the Cs this year with a 64 win Pistons team, a 63 win Spurs team and a 60 win Mavs team all looking like juggernauts. That's fine if that's your definition but I find it somewhat odd that someone would create a definition that leaves out recent NBA champions.
But you're defining contender really as probable NBA finalist. To me that's a different definition than a contender. That's a front runner.
In any given year you can have more than 3 contenders, this year (and last year) were just unique in that regard. The Heat only won 52 games, but they had won 59 the year before (losing in the ECF) and in the offseason added Williams, Walker, Payton, and Posey and had a lot worse health during the regular season (and they basically only lost Eddie and Damon Jones). The Heat were absolutely contenders in 05/06 and it didn't take them winning for me to think that.
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
Your definition leaves out the 2005 Miami Heat as a contender. Their odds were similar to the Cs this year with a 64 win Pistons team, a 63 win Spurs team and a 60 win Mavs team all looking like juggernauts. That's fine if that's your definition but I find it somewhat odd that someone would create a definition that leaves out recent NBA champions.
But you're defining contender really as probable NBA finalist. To me that's a different definition than a contender. That's a front runner.
TP!
By Moranis' definition I think it will be next year if we sign Hayward. If Durant and Love aren't 100% for the playoffs I could see us being a contender this year.
This team has a really high ceiling (competitive against elite teams in the playoffs if those teams aren't 100%) but also a really low floor (I could envision them losing in the first round too)
that's the thing, if you can easily envision a team losing in the first round, it isn't a contender. That doesn't mean a contender might not lose in the 1st round, it has happened, but it shouldn't be something you would actually envision happening. It would have to be one of those epic upsets not just a minor one.
-
I'd define a contender as a team that has a realistic chance to win a title considering reasonable health for all teams. That doesn't mean that the team would be the favorite, but it wouldn't be a major upset if it did win the title. Thus, I'd say there are 3 contenders this year i.e. Cleveland, Golden State, and San Antonio. For any other team to win it would likely have 2 major upsets in the playoffs.
Here is an article with championship odds from 2/6/17 (i.e. before the deadline moves and Durant's injury) http://www.espn.com/chalk/story/_/id/16176731/nba-2017-nba-title-odds-westgate-las-vegas-superbook
GS was at 4-7, CLE 2-1, and SAS 7-1. Houston and Boston were at 20-1 and the next two closest. That just seems like it is too great a gap to be a realistic contender to me at the half way point of the season. Now deadline moves could have altered that, but Boston and Houston really didn't make any of those.
Even looking at the East, CLE was a 1-5 favorite to win the East. Boston was at 5-1, Toronto at 8-1, and Washington 15-1. Out west, GS was 4-15 while San An was 13-4. Houston at 10-1 and LAC at 12-1 were the next closest.
Your definition leaves out the 2005 Miami Heat as a contender. Their odds were similar to the Cs this year with a 64 win Pistons team, a 63 win Spurs team and a 60 win Mavs team all looking like juggernauts. That's fine if that's your definition but I find it somewhat odd that someone would create a definition that leaves out recent NBA champions.
But you're defining contender really as probable NBA finalist. To me that's a different definition than a contender. That's a front runner.
TP!
By Moranis' definition I think it will be next year if we sign Hayward. If Durant and Love aren't 100% for the playoffs I could see us being a contender this year.
This team has a really high ceiling (competitive against elite teams in the playoffs if those teams aren't 100%) but also a really low floor (I could envision them losing in the first round too)
that's the thing, if you can easily envision a team losing in the first round, it isn't a contender. That doesn't mean a contender might not lose in the 1st round, it has happened, but it shouldn't be something you would actually envision happening. It would have to be one of those epic upsets not just a minor one.
I think that's a fair statement regarding how to define a contender. you could possibly add in that there's an expectation that the team would reach the conference finals at a minimum (there are those unusual years when a conference may 3 true powerhouse teams so a top team won't make the conference finals).
This year, Cle, GSW and SAS would be the only reasonable candidates. if the C's sign Hayward, trade for another all-star with their assets and sign a solid big man to put with Horford, C's could get into the conversation next year.
-
They could win it all this year.
They're #2 in the East right now which should make them favorites to get to the ECF. I have some fear of Washington/Toronto in the second round but if they can past whichever one of them they wind up facing, I think they match up pretty well with Cleveland. Yes, Cleveland is the better team and has the best player (best two players?) but if the C's turn the defense up a notch and Jaylen/Jae is enough to keep Lebron in check, they have a chance.
And then they're in the Finals and if making the Finals doesn't mean "contention" then I don't know what does.
-
Contending? They already? Serious title contention? Within 3 years. I do think they'll be the ones to fill the void in the east once CLE starts to fade.
It's really a matter of continuing to do what they're doing and hope there isn't any unforeseen abrupt fall off from what they already have. I do think they need to tinker with things via FA and its imperative they nail things with these BKN picks if they keep them. Right now, nothing is telling me that this team won't be a contending team in the East for the foreseeable future. Now, its really just a matter when they can get to that next level of contendership.
-
What is the definition of "contend for a championship"? That's an opinion statement.
It could be argued that Brooklyn is "contending for a championship" this year by virtue of being in the NBA. It could be argued that any team making the playoffs is contending. Do you have to make the NBA finals to contend (meaning that the 81-82 Celtics weren't contenders)? The original statement needs to be clarified.
My personal definition is that a team contends when they win 50 games and have home court in the 1st round of the playoffs. This picks up teams like the 2003 Pistons, the 2005 Heat, the 2010 Mavs - teams in the last 15 years who either didn't win 55 games or didn't win their division but still went on to win the whole ball of wax.
With that definition in mind the Cs are contenders this year. They're on pace to win 52 games (same as the 2005 Heat), win their division and have the 2nd seed in the playoffs. They aren't the odds-on favorite but according to likely seed and Vegas odds the Cs have the 2nd best chance in the Eastern Conference.
I could go with that definition, but I think you need to advance beyond the 1st round as well. So my definition is more strict but in the same ballpark.
The the issue with that definition is you're using the playoff results to define the contending status. If the results that were all that matter, were the 2011 Spurs (61 wins), the '07 Mavs (67 wins) and the '94 Sonics (63 wins) not considered contenders because they didn't make it out of the first round of the playoffs? They were some of the odds on favorites to make the NBA championships those years. No one before the playoffs would have said on those years those teams weren't contenders. Using the results to justify the definition seems a bit ex post facto.
Thus I attempted to define whether a team was a contender at the point the playoffs started and when looking at teams that won the NBA championships in the last 20 years (which is a high bar as I probably should have looked at teams that made it to the finals) those were the parameters that all winners had. The Cs will fall right in with those groups this year.
Fair enough, Granath. I would however say to look up how the '07 Mavs, '11 Spurs and '94 Sonics faired in the previous season. I would bet that at least 2 of the 3 made it past the 1st round. Thus my definition is not ex post facto.