ESPN Future Power Rankings

[rhythmless]

Kings @ 29.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/FuturePowerRankings-1-140908/nba-future-power-rankings

Most telling is our management "score" of 9 (out of 100).

Excerpt, which I agree with and have posted about previously:

"Much of this can be traced to the new ownership, which has all the hallmarks of being too "hands-on" without having a clear idea of what it's doing. The franchise is signaling that it wants to think outside the box for the sake of thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, the end result is an inferior product on the court. Simply put, this is not a good team and the process indicates that won't change soon."

 

[hrdboild]

Not sure it's fair to make those kinds of assertions after one year of new management. We haven't even had a chance to see where this is going yet. But it's ESPN and we're not the Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, or Lakers so shoddy phoned-in analysis is the norm.

 

[Padrino]

Not sure it's fair to make those kinds of assertions after one year of new management. We haven't even had a chance to see where this is going yet. But it's ESPN and we're not the Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, or Lakers so shoddy phoned-in analysis is the norm.

worse, it's ESPN "Insider," which is mostly just an excuse to milk subscription dollars from fans. "Insider" pieces tend to be as hacky as they come in sports journalism circles...

 

[rhythmless]

It's not like this is the first time this rhetoric has been thrown around. But I fully expected the small town defense and also the ESPN bash.

 

[rhythmless]

Not sure it's fair to make those kinds of assertions after one year of new management. We haven't even had a chance to see where this is going yet. But it's ESPN and we're not the Yankees, Red Sox, Celtics, or Lakers so shoddy phoned-in analysis is the norm.

Way to show your bias.

Lakers: 28
Brooklyn: 30

The top 3? The media hubs known as San Antonio, Cleveland, and OKC. Come on dude. We suck and have made odd moves. The entire NBA is looking at us like we're running around with our head cut off. And we haven't shown anything to prove them wrong. What do you really expecT?

 

[andjel]

Any list that does not have 76rs last has 0 credibility.

 

[VF21]

Kings @ 29.
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/FuturePowerRankings-1-140908/nba-future-power-rankings

Most telling is our management "score" of 9 (out of 100).

Excerpt, which I agree with and have posted about previously:

"Much of this can be traced to the new ownership, which has all the hallmarks of being too "hands-on" without having a clear idea of what it's doing. The franchise is signaling that it wants to think outside the box for the sake of thinking outside the box. Unfortunately, the end result is an inferior product on the court. Simply put, this is not a good team and the process indicates that won't change soon."

If there's one thing ESPN Insider knows plenty about, it's "inferior product" identification. All they need to do is look in the mirror.

 

[sdballer]

Any list that does not have 76rs last has 0 credibility.

The point of the rankings are who has the best potential to be good in a few years. With their cap space, young players and draft picks, they rank higher.

 

[andjel]

The point of the rankings are who has the best potential to be good in a few years. With their cap space, young players and draft picks, they rank higher.

ah, future beyond this year, did not catch that. Thanks.

That of course just puts article from not-credible to "fortune teller machine" value.
This one is more valuable: http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/6/3/5772796/nba-y2k-series-finale-the-death-of-basketball

 

[hrdboild]

Way to show your bias.

Lakers: 28
Brooklyn: 30

The top 3? The media hubs known as San Antonio, Cleveland, and OKC. Come on dude. We suck and have made odd moves. The entire NBA is looking at us like we're running around with our head cut off. And we haven't shown anything to prove them wrong. What do you really expecT?

Maybe you should take a second to understand what I'm saying before you criticize me for comments I didn't even make. (a) I don't have ESPN insider, so I have no idea where any team was ranked (b) Slavering over every morsel of Lakers and Yankees related news is not the same thing as ranking them #1 on every list. (c) You may enjoy ESPN, which is fine. As a centralized source of information I sometimes find them useful. But as a fan of both the Sacramento Kings and Oakland Athletics I'm used to them completely ignoring my teams except when some pundit decides to grace us with their misinformed and borderline insulting "expert" analysis which is almost always simplistic and/or reductionist parroting of what other national media outlets are already saying.

Case in point, the quote you posted and agreed with. Now I don't like everything this front office has done. I was vehemently against losing Tyreke Evans, was incredulous when they followed that up with a big deal for Carl Landry, thought this year's draft day dog-and-pony show was a bit of a media misstep, and remain skeptical over their courting of Rudy Gay as a max salary player. But I also recognize that these guys care about this team and they're making moves and trying things that the previous regime had no patience for. Furthermore, our current head coach is the best we've had since Adelman and he's already won the respect of his players after just one season. Calling this current front office a big part of the problem is completely overlooking the fact that they've had only one season to overhaul the roster. And calling them incapable of putting a good product on the court just because they didn't win in year 1 and their actions don't conform to easily analyzable thought processes is way premature at this point. I'm not a big fan of the choices they've made so far, but even I can recognize that.

...

To elaborate a bit (unnecessarily) the Bay Area is not a small market. Sacramento isn't even that small of a market either, but ESPN is a "lifestyle" website more than anything else. And if your team isn't close to the pulse of whatever the happening cultural moment is (The Big 3! Lebron's return! Durant winning MVP!) than they couldn't care less about what your story is. It's really only when they make an attempt at a comprehensive league-wide analysis that their blundering inadequacy in that area becomes obvious. It's also unnecessary at this point. If you really want to know what's going on with a particular team, read a fan blog or message board. Who needs a middle man anymore?

 

[HereWeBoogie]

ESPN always showing Sac Town love

 

[The Hammer]

Maybe you should take a second to understand what I'm saying before you criticize me for comments I didn't even make. (a) I don't have ESPN insider, so I have no idea where any team was ranked (b) Slavering over every morsel of Lakers and Yankees related news is not the same thing as ranking them #1 on every list. (c) You may enjoy ESPN, which is fine. As a centralized source of information I sometimes find them useful. But as a fan of both the Sacramento Kings and Oakland Athletics I'm used to them completely ignoring my teams except when some pundit decides to grace us with their misinformed and borderline insulting "expert" analysis which is almost always simplistic and/or reductionist parroting of what other national media outlets are already saying.

Case in point, the quote you posted and agreed with. Now I don't like everything this front office has done. I was vehemently against losing Tyreke Evans, was incredulous when they followed that up with a big deal for Carl Landry, thought this year's draft day dog-and-pony show was a bit of a media misstep, and remain skeptical over their courting of Rudy Gay as a max salary player. But I also recognize that these guys care about this team and they're making moves and trying things that the previous regime had no patience for. Furthermore, our current head coach is the best we've had since Adelman and he's already won the respect of his players after just one season. Calling this current front office a big part of the problem is completely overlooking the fact that they've had only one season to overhaul the roster. And calling them incapable of putting a good product on the court just because they didn't win in year 1 and their actions don't conform to easily analyzable thought processes is way premature at this point. I'm not a big fan of the choices they've made so far, but even I can recognize that.

...

To elaborate a bit (unnecessarily) the Bay Area is not a small market. Sacramento isn't even that small of a market either, but ESPN is a "lifestyle" website more than anything else. And if your team isn't close to the pulse of whatever the happening cultural moment is (The Big 3! Lebron's return! Durant winning MVP!) than they couldn't care less about what your story is. It's really only when they make an attempt at a comprehensive league-wide analysis that their blundering inadequacy in that area becomes obvious. It's also unnecessary at this point. If you really want to know what's going on with a particular team, read a fan blog or message board. Who needs a middle man anymore?

Fantastic post.

 

[kingsboi]

Well considering we have been in the basement of the standings for 8 straight seasons, they have every right to put us towards the bottom five of the list until we prove it otherwise that we are done being cellar dwellers buried in lottery purgatory hoping to find another cornerstone.

 

[Tetsujin]

Way to show your bias.

Lakers: 28
Brooklyn: 30

The top 3? The media hubs known as San Antonio, Cleveland, and OKC. Come on dude. We suck and have made odd moves. The entire NBA is looking at us like we're running around with our head cut off. And we haven't shown anything to prove them wrong. What do you really expecT?

Well, in all fairness, the only reason Cleveland is in the top 3 is because Lebron decided to do them a solid and come back to the Cavs. Otherwise, they some how managed to turn 4 lottery picks into young Marcus Thornton (Dion Waiters), a garbage time hustle big man (Tristan Thompson), a fat and overweight tweener forward (Anthony Bennett), and a guy who Jerry Reynolds is obsessed with ranking below Isaiah Thomas (Kyrie Irving) -and they also traded for useless Tyler Zeller. Now the Wiggins pick doesn't seem like a miss by any means but that was essentially a no-brainer in a can't-miss part of the draft.

If the Cavs hadn't lucked into this year's #1 pick and if Lebron hadn't gotten homesick, I'd wager that the Cavs management deserves to be among the bottom five.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

Remember how worthless Power Rankings are? Take that worth and divide it by fifty. You're left with the worth of these rankings.

 

[The_Jamal]

Joke. We have a 23 year old top 20 player signed for the next 4 seasons. Which is hell of a lot better than most teams who likely plague the bottom of these "power rankings." Throw in some Stauskas, Ben McLemore, Ray McCallum, Derrick Williams all 23 and under and we have as much future potential as any team in the league. Guys like Rudy, JT and Collison aren't exactly heading to the retirement home with them being 27 and 28 years old.

 

[The Hammer]

Well considering we have been in the basement of the standings for 8 straight seasons, they have every right to put us towards the bottom five of the list until we prove it otherwise that we are done being cellar dwellers buried in lottery purgatory hoping to find another cornerstone.

Then what the hell is the point of calling them "Future" Power Rankings?

 

[Siranthony]

No one gave the Niners any credit either. The year Harbaugh came on board there was a strike and no one expected the Niners to be good. Fact is they already had a lot of tallent. The Kings have Tallent with Cousins and Gay. More unproven with McLemore and Stauskas. We did not make as many moves this off season as some think we should have. But we should improve this year. If not then something is wrong with coaching or mamagement..