re: Over/under win total for Pelicans set at 29.5 by Fanduel

quote:

---

Easy under. Look across the league. How many teams are we better than? How many games do we play against clearly weaker teams than us?

---

Atleast 10 teams and then atleast another 3+ that are close. And that's without us actually showing any improvements.

quote:

---

How many teams have 1-4 players better than our best player?

---

You tell us how many teams have 4 players better than our best player.

quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if we win 18 games next season.

---

The people who won't be surprised with an 18 win season will 100% be the same people complaining that 30-40 wins wasn't good enough.

quote:

---

and made no moves in FA.

---

Yeah I wish we could go back in time to when free agency/ trades were still a possibility.

Just have to go back 3 months into the future in the past.

quote:

---

Atleast 10 teams

---

Is this like last year when you said we were going to be better than Minnesota and Denver?

Even if you want to have a positive outlook on the team, there is no way we are better than at least 10 teams. I’m assuming that means you can name more you think we’re possibly better than.

I’d like to see the list, last years list was pretty comical.

quote:

---

Even if you want to have a positive outlook on the team, there is no way we are better than at least 10 teams. I’m assuming that means you can name more you think we’re possibly better than.
I’d like to see the list, last years list was pretty comical.

---

1. Wizards
2. Nets
3. Kings
4. Grizzlies
5. Bulls
6. Bucks
7. Mavericks
8. Clippers
9. Jazz
10. Hawks

(6) of those team were already worse than us last year with Murray out for half the year.

(3) of those teams blew up their rosters (Bucks, Clippers, Bulls)

(1) is the Hawks who got hot/ lucky at the end of last year and will come back down to earth with Pacers/ Philly/ MIA back in the mix.

I'm not sold on the Suns/ Warriors/ Hornets.

Play-In last year was: PHX/ GSW/ POR/ LAC and we were first team out. As of now I believe we easily replace LAC. Jazz should be the only comp from the first group even if we are inconsistent.

And this is assuming we don't add a starting Center or get substantial progression from either Trey/ Zion.

quote:

---

1. Wizards
2. Nets
3. Kings
4. Grizzlies
5. Bulls
6. Bucks
7. Mavericks
8. Clippers
9. Jazz
10. Hawks

(6) of those team were already worse than us last year with Murray out for half the year.

---

Six of them were tanking and we weren't. Not really a great argument

If we are assuming every team stays healthy and in theory no tanking (safe to say plenty will be tanking), I agree we should be better than the Nets and Bucks. Though a Randle and MPJ led nets team could rattle off some wins in a weaker conference. Certainly wish we had the Nets assets, they have a legit war chest.

Wizards could easily make a huge jump, potentially playoffs good. Again, this is assuming healthy but with AD, Trae, Sarr, Bilal, T. Johnson and Dybantsa could be a fun team to watch and could give some teams hell especially if Dybantsa lives up to the hype. Don't see us being better than them at all if healthy.

Kings i would probably lean towards agreeing with you but consider it a push. Both teams are bad and will likely be tanking.

Grizzlies I'd say push as well but they have a lot of scrappy guys and it depends on how good Boozer is right away and if Coward makes a leap forward. Boozer, Coward, GG, Grant and Stewart is probably going to be scrappy.

Bulls i'd say they have a better record given the conference and I think Wilson could be a star. They shouldn't be better given they just blew it up but I think they probably will be.

Jazz are maybe a push but I lean towards them being better if I had to pick and no tanking was allowed. Peterson, Bailey, Lauri, JJJ and Nurkic is pretty nice. They have a bright outlook.

Again, if healthy and no tanking I think:

For sure better:

Hawks
Mavs
Wizards

Lean towards being better:

Jazz
Bulls
Grizzlies

Push but lean towards us being better:

Kings

Only ones I'd feel comfortable betting we'd be better than:

Nets
Bucks

Would need to see how it plays out with Kawhi before saying the Clippers.

Best case scenario I see us being better than 6 teams, similar to last year, and worst case i see us as the absolute worst.

quote:

---

And this is assuming we don't add a starting Center or get substantial progression from either Trey/ Zion.

---

On no planet is either of those guys making "substantial progression."

quote:

---

Six of them were tanking and we weren't. Not really a great argument

---

Its not a great argument that we will finish ahead of 6 teams that finished behind us, didn't make many upgrades, and we were missing a best player for half the season?

Instead of saying its not a great argument why don't you just admit that it indeed is but you disagree?

quote:

---

Best case scenario I see us being better than 6 teams, similar to last year, and worst case i see us as the absolute worst.

---

This makes absolutely no sense. Murray played 14 games last year... Adding a guy who avergaed 16.7pts/ 5.4reb/ 6.4ast/ 1.4stl for potentially +68 games AND an extra year of maturity from Fears/ Queen/ Missi makes us worse?

Name a single player from the 13 teams I listed that would have enough impact to justify those those teams jumping us compared to last year and then jumping us compared to last years + adding Murray's impact for +68 games.

None of the taking teams added a whole fricking all star team.

quote:

---

Especially given that numerous of those teams made upgrades and we did not.

---

None of those upgrades outweigh 68 game with Murray.

quote:

---

That's also you not factoring in other teams also are going to make improvements.

---

And the teams listed that lost assets/ went backwards?

quote:

---

You're acting like we are somehow going to be the only team that gets better and doing so by standing still in free agency.

---

We (should be) a better team than all of those teams. Us getting a good coach and actually playing up to expectations makes us better straight up. A struggling Pels team is close with those teams.

I'm acting like Murray is the best individual asset that any of those 14 teams "added" this offseason. Sure AJ, Boozer, Peterson should look great but will have growing pains. Murray probably has the biggest impact as a vet and those other teams are already worse.

quote:

---

None of those upgrades outweigh 68 game with Murray.

---

+82 with Trae Young, +77 with Anthony Davis, +82 with AJ Dybantsa >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +68 with Murray.

quote:

---

I'm acting like Murray is the best individual asset that any of those 14 teams "added" this offseason. Sure AJ, Boozer, Peterson should look great but will have growing pains. Murray probably has the biggest impact as a vet and those other teams are already worse.

---

We went 5-9 with Murray last year. You're acting like we're getting a star back. He's a good player, not somebody that is going to change us from a bad team to a good team.

quote:

---

We (should be) a better team than all of those teams.

---

It's like groundhogs day. Last year we had this same discussion and you called me a F'n idiot because I said we were going to be a bottom 8 team and you said we were going to be better than the Nuggets and Wolves. Here were are again, the next year, with the same roster, and you have us in the playoffs yet again.

quote:

---

Every single year during the Zion era we have gone under on the win projections (except the fluky 49 win season). Why would this year be different.

---

Weren't we projected to win 40-50 games those seasons? And are arguably better/ more healthy?

quote:

---

I guess there was some mental gymnastics that since the other three didn't suck that prediction wasn't wrong. Now you've doubled down and we have an entire lineup of potential all stars this year.

---

"3 potential all stars on the team" 2 of which have already been all stars... Yeah Poole sucked. Yes any of the (3) Queen/ Fears/ Trey can be future all stars. In that same thread I also specifically stated it would be ridiculous to assume 3+ players actually make the all stars and it was based on playing potential.
But continue to exaggerae or be dishonest.

quote:

---

Now you've doubled down and we have an entire lineup of potential all stars this year

---

I'd ask you to provide where I said this but you are being dishonest and exaggerating again.