More below the jump.

For some reason, Zach Lowe's assessment of the Wolves on Grantland bothered me. Logically, however, it shouldn't: there are legitimate reasons why some are more skeptical of this team's playoff chances than me. I agree more with the stats perspective of the Wolves' chances, but from a conventional view, it looks worse (not bad, just worse). So in an attempt to gauge opinions and troll the fans of other teams, I invite all of you to post your list and rationale behind it. Here's mine:

1. Portland: too many young players, not enough top-level talent, not a good enough coach to compensate
2. Houston: too much turnover, too many young players, too many guys competing for minutes, no top-level talent
3. Sacramento: I have no idea whether this team will figure it out. With that said, are they really more talented than the Wolves? Most importantly, young don't win in the NBA, and their vets aren't what I'd consider leaders.
4. Phoenix: An illusion of top-level talent where none exists. They're overrated offensively and not good enough defensively to cover for that.
   
5. New Orleans: Too young; however, they could end up better than the Wolves in two years. Ryan Anderson is their version of Pek (underrated but very efficient).
6. Golden State: My response is littered with questions. Why is it assumed Mark Jackson can coach? Why are Andrew Bogut and David Lee considered an upper-echelon starting frontcourt (especially with Bogut's injury history)? Why do people assume their rookies will significantly contribute?
7. Dallas: For such a disappointing offseason, it sure was overrated. Other than the strong veteran contingent and the presence of Dirk and Carlisle, I don't why they're considered a playoff lock by anyone.
8. Utah: This was the toughest. I don't know if the Wolves are better; I just think they were better last year when both teams were healthy and their upgrades were more significant than Utah's. Oh, and Adelman's a better coach.