12-10-2025, 10:45 AM
(12-10-2025, 10:00 AM)khaled1987 Wrote: You keep mentioning the term contender, and I am not sure what it means for you tbh. Can you define it in this context?
Because I fail to see a true contender in the East, a team that was supposed to tank like Boston is 3rd atm, Knicks with Mike Brown, who hasn't won a playoff series in 13 years. are 2nd and a young Detroit team is the first. It is all over the place, Chicago were 9-7 and looked legit and then they lose 7 in a row and out of the play-in place.
A trip to the Finals is more than possible with AD, the last one in their history? In 1961 when the NBA was 9 teams, playoffs were 4 teams and Hawks were in St. Louis playing in the Western Conference. Hawks had plenty of top 5 or top 10 picks in this century alone with nothing more than conference finals to show for, so winning the East and getting spanked by OKC would still be the greatest season in their history (in Atlanta) and would be worth it. I think AD gives them one of the best chances to do, and this is probably the reason they are interested.
If I were them, I would try to get Giannis first, but I won't make the pick untouchable
Good question. For me a contender is a team with a legit chance to win it all. In my opinion, true contenders are (of course assuming teams are healthy):
Tier 1: OKC in a league of their own. It will be an extremely hard task to beat them in any best of seven series, although some teams could give them trouble
Tier 2:
- Houston. They are good but they need a good PG to be really good
- Denver. They have Jokic but I think they are vulnerable a lot mostly because they are injury prone and have bad defense
- Detroit. They play good defense, but could use some reinforcements on offensive side
- Cleveland. Their team should be good, if they can stay healthy. I think they are much better than their current standing
- NY. They have the pieces, at least in the starting five. Can they put them together when it matters most?
I would have LAL as perhaps borderline Tier 2. Need to see them in more games against top teams. Very match-up dependent team due to their lack of athleticism. I think Atlanta is in tier 4 as they are. I am not sure if swapping (lets say) KP and Risacher for AD puts them two tiers higher. I agree that East looks much weaker than West, but lets not forget Atlanta is currently 9th in that weak East. Getting Davis would perhaps put them in a fight with Detroit, NY and Cleveland to get out of East. Assuming they keep Trae, he would still be a constant target on defense. Close to impossible to hide him against top teams. Johnson and Davis are both injury prone, so it is a big risk that one of them misses the playoffs. If he does, they can't really survive/replace his production.
For me a move for an injury prone guy in his thirties is a move you make if you are:
a) sure he puts you in tier 1 contenders or
b) you keep enough assets if the thing doesn't work out - don't spend top assets for him
I don't think AD fits under a). I certainly don't believe that they would become a surefire team to win the East with AD. Based on how strong OKC is, I would be very careful and rather keep the great assets that can make you good in a couple of years. I would not bet my future against them. AD is a short term move, that gives you a very short window where a lot of things need to go right (and even that might not be enough). Mavs are a prime example of how quickly that plan can fall apart.