2 things "wrong" with these teams:
1) A lot of the teams you listed as having scoring problems (which by the way is not the only barometer for success in the game, you know that) have a good amount of new players added to their roster. It's not as easy to integrate players into a new system, especially when thye've played another for so long (i.e. Sprewell). Even though many of the new players acquired by teams are above average players, it stil ldoes take a while to get them fully involved into a new offensive scheme. If these scores are still happening roundabout January then it's possible those teams have made the wrong moves towards winning.
2) The other teams listed are YOUNG! Despite what most people here think, youth is NOT a recipe for success in any professional sport on any level. Consistent winning doesn't happen until players have been around for a bit and learn how to play the pro game. Just becaus ea guy can fly and dunk good doesn't mean he'll be a successful NBA player. When I see some people here posting that the Lakers should get this guy or that guy solely on the basis that they can dunk good it kills me. Likewise, when everyonme here was bashing Mitch for acquiring "older" players all I could do was shake my head in disappointment.
There has yet to be a team to win the championship by using predominantly younger players. It just doesn't happen. Especailly in today's "dunk first, defend later" style of play.
My opinion is:
* Minnesota made great acquisitions but as far as chemistry goes they will struggle this year and they won't make it out of the first round again. Sam Cassell is too strong of an ego for that team. When it's all said and done I can't see KG playing with him for too long.
* Chicago has years to go before they're competitive. Simply getting Pippen back doesn't put them into position for a playoff run. They're too young and have a lot to learn about budgeting energy throughout this marathon of a season
* Toronto has one gun Vince Carter. And that gun refuses to play defense. When the "leader" on your team has a bad attitude and the rest of the team built around him is young, easily influenced and also not willing to do the dirty work it takes to win, it'll be a long year until something changes.
* Memphis is another shining example of team with a possibly bright future, if they can survive the present. There's a lot of young players growing up together on that team. Jerry has built a team for the future there, which can be a good or bad thing depending on the patience of the players and organization.
* New York has no offense to speak of on that team. Allan Houston had maybe 2 solid years at best, got his contract and has since cashed the checks without shwoing up to work. It's not a big surprise to me that that team has struggled so mightily. They're an impatient city that has demanded too much too quickly and the rag team Layden has put together to try to appease the fans has no regard to chemistry or defensive match-ups. The Knicks will be in trouble for a long time to come, McDyess or no McDyess.
* Orlando is a one horse team. Tracy McGrady can only do so much every night to keep that team competitive. Blame this one on the organization for spenind money on the wrong player, Grant Hill. They knew of his chronic injury status and they knew he was a soft player as far as endurance and strength go. Butm, they rolled the dice and it came up busted for 'em. Now they're stuck with a one scorer team and that scorer will get real sick of losing real quick like if they don't do something about it - and now.
When it comes down to it, like it or not, veterans win now and young players learn to win in the future. Which one are you willing to lean towards? Me, I'll take the now and develop the future as it comes.