How Many NBA Title Contenders Do You See?

GameOver · 2009-08-02T15:58:20-07:00

Rivers: Nine Or Ten Teams Can Win Title Aug 02, 2009 10:04 AM EST Celtics coach Doc Rivers believes that we will enter the 2009-10 season with nine or ten legitimate title contenders. "Nine or 10 teams think they can win the championship next year, and you can see by the moves," Rivers told the Boston Globe. Rivers cited the reduction in the NBA's salary cap and the unwillingness of two-thirds of the league to spend. "Because of the economy, 20 or 21 feel they can't. A group of nine looked at the Finals last year and said, 'We can do this,' and they are going for it," Rivers added. So Coach Rivers thinks 9 or 10 legitimately feel like they can win it all...Im havin trouble where hes getting that number...I think you can make a hocus pocus crazy situation for any of the following teams to be legit contenders and possibly win it this year... Los Angeles Lakers Orlando Magic San Antonio Spurs Cleveland Cavaliers Boston Celtics However, after those 5...I think your messing with teams who are missing huge peices...I mean, theres Denver and Dallas...you could also argue Utah & Portland perhaps (pending what Utah does with Booz and how Portlands youth improve and how Andre helps out)...maybe Toronto & Washington out East...but really? Besides those 5, I think your reaching...reaching bad too... So thanks to Coach Rivers, Im now asking you, do you really think any team outside the 5 I mentioned have a legitimate chance of winning the title this upcoming NBA season?

Aug 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM

Dino
Veteran
Posts: 22,425

Lakers

Boston
Orlando
Spurs
Cavs

Aug 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM

toeknee
Veteran
Posts: 54,571

spurs will win it all or my name isn't diego montoya

Aug 2, 2009 at 4:59 PM

IWASATTHECATCH
Hall of Fame
Posts: 22,008

Bodogs' odds for the 2010 season:

lakers 9/5
Cleveland 10/3
Boston 5/1
Orlando 8/1
Spurs 17/2

Warriors 125/1
Kings, Bucks, Memph & TWolves 150/1

http://sports.bodog.com/sports-betting/basketball-futures.jsp

Aug 2, 2009 at 7:21 PM

LA9erFan
Veteran
Posts: 66,021

Yeah, I don't see anyone beyond those 5 teams.

Aug 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM

GoNiners
Veteran
Posts: 5,418

it's all about the Suns my friends

Aug 2, 2009 at 10:46 PM

9erReign
StonksKing
Posts: 50,620

Lakers
Boston
San antonio
Magic
Cavs

Could win but won't
New Orleans
Portland
Dallas
Denver
Toronto

Aug 3, 2009 at 5:54 AM

49erKing
Veteran
Posts: 18,784

No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Aug 3, 2009 at 6:49 AM

pantstickle
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3,526

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Aug 3, 2009 at 7:57 AM

valrod33
Hall of Small
Posts: 138,115

Originally posted by 9erReign:
Lakers
Boston
San antonio
Magic
Cavs

Could win but won't
New Orleans
Portland
Dallas
Denver
Toronto

Really?

Aug 3, 2009 at 7:58 AM

#10

49erKing
Veteran
Posts: 18,784

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Lakers no. Spurs just seem too old and rusty. I think Battier and Ariza can contain Manu. TP would probably have his way with Brooks but it goes both ways. Duncan needs to have a monster season for the Spurs to have any chance. McDyess is a good pickup and is probably the other X factor but he's an old man too.

Aug 3, 2009 at 8:10 AM

#11

pantstickle
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3,526

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Lakers no. Spurs just seem too old and rusty. I think Battier and Ariza can contain Manu. TP would probably have his way with Brooks but it goes both ways. Duncan needs to have a monster season for the Spurs to have any chance. McDyess is a good pickup and is probably the other X factor but he's an old man too.

So you really think Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess is equal to Brooks, Ariza, Battier, Houston PF, and Houston C?

I understand we all like our teams...but really? You aren't getting a rise out of me, so that can't be it.

Aug 3, 2009 at 8:30 AM

#12

LA9erFan
Veteran
Posts: 66,021

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Lakers no. Spurs just seem too old and rusty. I think Battier and Ariza can contain Manu. TP would probably have his way with Brooks but it goes both ways. Duncan needs to have a monster season for the Spurs to have any chance. McDyess is a good pickup and is probably the other X factor but he's an old man too.

So you really think Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess is equal to Brooks, Ariza, Battier, Houston PF, and Houston C?

I understand we all like our teams...but really? You aren't getting a rise out of me, so that can't be it.

He's a Celtic fan, so it's not a homerism thing. But I don't understand it AT ALL. That team wasn't all that great on offense to begin with, and then they lost their top 2 scorers (Yao, Artest). They might miss the playoffs altogether, much less challenge for the title.

Aug 3, 2009 at 8:33 AM

#13

49erKing
Veteran
Posts: 18,784

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Lakers no. Spurs just seem too old and rusty. I think Battier and Ariza can contain Manu. TP would probably have his way with Brooks but it goes both ways. Duncan needs to have a monster season for the Spurs to have any chance. McDyess is a good pickup and is probably the other X factor but he's an old man too.

So you really think Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess is equal to Brooks, Ariza, Battier, Houston PF, and Houston C?

I understand we all like our teams...but really? You aren't getting a rise out of me, so that can't be it.

Scola's a pretty good PF and don't forget Houston's X factor...Tmac.

I don't know how you can disregard this team that was one win (granted an impossible win) away from the Western Conference finals. Ariza for Artest is a wash imo.

Aug 3, 2009 at 8:45 AM

#14

pantstickle
Hall of Fame
Posts: 3,526

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by pantstickle:
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
No love for Houston?

So no Yao, no Artest...but they added Ariza and have a pretty good roster (Battier, Brooks, Scola + some good depth). Plus there's the X factor in McGrady. I'm guessing they'll need a big man to step in the middle.

Really? I understand if you're a fan, but do you really think they're better than the Spurs or Lakers?

Lakers no. Spurs just seem too old and rusty. I think Battier and Ariza can contain Manu. TP would probably have his way with Brooks but it goes both ways. Duncan needs to have a monster season for the Spurs to have any chance. McDyess is a good pickup and is probably the other X factor but he's an old man too.

So you really think Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Tim Duncan, Richard Jefferson, Antonio McDyess is equal to Brooks, Ariza, Battier, Houston PF, and Houston C?

I understand we all like our teams...but really? You aren't getting a rise out of me, so that can't be it.

Scola's a pretty good PF and don't forget Houston's X factor...Tmac.

I don't know how you can disregard this team that was one win (granted an impossible win) away from the Western Conference finals. Ariza for Artest is a wash imo.

Because they lost their two top scorers and had the Lakers actually played their best it wouldn't have been that close. They weren't that good, and Ariza isn't exactly an offensive weapon, aside from fast breaks and open 3's. Like Pete said, they could miss the playoffs.