[h3]Question: Which West team is best suited to pull off a Lakers upset?[/h3]
BUCHER: With all that changed in the NBA during the offseason, one constant remains: The
Los Angeles Lakers are the overwhelming favorite to win the Western Conference again. But who is the biggest threat to upset them? I'm going to go with the West team that scared them the most this past spring, the
Oklahoma City Thunder.
BROUSSARD: I think Oklahoma City is the non-Lakers team that is most able -- perhaps even likeliest -- to have the best West record. But I think the Thunder are too young to reach the NBA Finals. Getting through that tough Western Conference playoff gauntlet is a lot to ask of a team with just one year of postseason experience and no playoff series wins. I thought about taking Dallas, but I can't put my faith in the Mavs. Therefore, I'll go with the
Portland Trail Blazers.
RB: Thank you for setting me up. My biggest reservation about the Thunder being capable of upsetting the Lakers is that they've never won a playoff series. Knowing what it takes to close out an opponent is crucial -- as is winning a playoff game on the road, playing from behind in a series, etc. -- and a team or star who's never done it is at a disadvantage. But because you agree that the Thunder will have one of the best records in the West, they won't face the Lakers until they've already won a round or two. So then it will come down to matchups, and that's where the Thunder can create more problems for the Lakers than anybody else.
CB: Nice try, Buch, but do I look that stupid? (For the sake of our friendship, don't answer that.) My point is that teams don't go from never having won a playoff series to reaching the Finals in the course of
one year. Winning three straight tough playoff series will be absolutely uncharted territory for a group of practically college-aged kids. They'll be mentally and emotionally spent by the time they reach the Western Conference finals (if they do). The last Finals team whose best players had never won a playoff series before that season was the 1994-95
Orlando Magic. And we all know they would not have done it if
Michael Jordan hadn't been as rusty as a neglected '54 Chevy after returning from playing minor league baseball. As much as I like
Kevin Durant and
Russell Westbrook, I'm not ready to put them in the class of
Shaquille O'Neal and
Penny Hardaway. So using history as our guide, it is virtually impossible for OKC to go all the way to the Finals.
RB: The precedent would be historic, but teams have come awfully close to doing it.
LeBron James and the
Cleveland Cavaliers had won only one playoff round before their march to the 2007 Finals. And the
Minnesota Timberwolves had never won a single round before going all the way to the conference finals in 2004, when they lost to the Lakers.
I'll take the Thunder's chances of making history because they have the components -- an unstoppable go-to scorer, an athletic point guard, an equally athletic power forward in
Serge Ibaka, physical and mental toughness in both the backcourt and frontcourt and a cohesive organization. Experience is all they're lacking. I look at all the other teams in the West, and I just don't see the same potential. We already know what Dallas, Portland and Denver are versus the Lakers: not good enough. I don't see how they're going to change that between now and the spring.
CB: Cleveland had a much easier route to the Finals in 2007 because the East was a joke. The only good team the Cavs had to go through was an aging Detroit squad. This year's Western Conference, although weakened a bit, is still very strong. And that Minnesota team was full of veterans.
Kevin Garnett was a vet,
Latrell Sprewell had played in the Finals and
Sam Cassell had won two championships in Houston. So those comparisons aren't really appropriate.
Don't get me wrong, I do like the Thunder, but I think expecting them to reach the Finals, even if L.A. falters, is too much. They have next to nothing inside, even if Ibaka continues to improve, and Westbrook, although dynamic, still has much to learn about running a team. If healthy, the Trail Blazers can beat the Thunder in a tough playoff series.
RB: This debate is about who has the best chance of pulling off an upset. You keep telling me why OKC can't without making a case for why the Blazers are better suited. Let's face it: The franchise's prospects are dimmer now than two years ago. The way Kevin Pritchard and Tom Penn were sent away is not the way a franchise headed in the right direction operates, regardless of what you think of Pritchard's performance. Nate McMillan even chose not to sign an extension, which speaks volumes.
Rudy Fernandez wants out,
Brandon Roy and
Andre Miller have struggled to mesh, and Roy, at the tender age of 26, is having a hard time staying healthy for a full season. That doesn't sound to me like a team in the least bit ready to knock off the defending champs.
CB: Fernandez is irrelevant; now that
Wesley Matthews is there, the Trail Blazers have depth with or without him. All Miller does is make teams better -- check his history. After some growing pains last season, he, Roy and McMillan will be fine together. We know what we're getting from
LaMarcus Aldridge.
Nicolas Batum should continue to improve at the 3 spot, and
Marcus Camby provides insurance in case
Greg Oden remains hobbled. With Camby there, you don't have to rush Oden back, so assuming Oden returns healthy for the second half of the season, the Blazers could be clicking come playoff time. If Oden plays as well as he did before getting hurt last season, he'll give Portland something OKC doesn't have -- an answer for
Andrew Bynum and any other big out West. Then, you'll still have Camby and perhaps even
Joel Przybilla. They play solid half-court offense, yet can run with Miller when the opportunity presents itself. They can rebound and defend, and they've got a solid amount of experience.
RB: I've long thought Fernandez was overrated. That's not the point. Fernandez wanting out, McMillan not signing an extension and the humiliation of Pritchard are signs of a franchise coming apart, and those aren't the kind of teams that pull major upsets. Matthews is no longer an undrafted, minimum-wage overachiever; now he's a $9 million defender, and we all know how players struggle, particularly in the first year, under the weight of a fat, new price tag.
I'm glad I checked Miller's stats -- they reminded me that he's never made it out of the first round. I actually like Dre, but he and Roy function best when they have the ball. That's not something you figure out but fix by moving Miller, which is what the Blazers tried to do more than once last season. Again, it's not the kind of thing you hear too often about a team capable of knocking off the defending champs.
CB: Actually, Miller and Roy can play well together. Miller didn't begin playing big minutes with the Blazers until Roy got injured in January, and that's when Miller took off. When Roy came back, both players continued to play well alongside each other. March is the one full month in which they both played full time, and Roy averaged 21 points and four assists while Miller averaged a strong 15 points and six assists. Most importantly, the Blazers won 11 of 13 games, including victories over Dallas and Oklahoma City.
With Miller better acclimated and all the tension from his arrival gone, the Blazers should be much better. Everyone besides the Lakers is a long shot to win the West, but if L.A. falls, it'll be Portland, not OKC, that picks up the torch.