Kings rank high on "teams to watch" list

[EIM86]

Didn't want to make a thread for this but didn't know where to put it at the same time.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...-rankings--spurs-of-the-moment-090012621.html

I know rankings mean nothing but how are we ranked #4?!

MOD NOTE: I moved this to its own thread. - VF21

 

[Glenn]

Didn't want to make a thread for this but didn't know where to put it at the same time.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...-rankings--spurs-of-the-moment-090012621.html

I know rankings mean nothing but how are we ranked #4?!

I don't know what the #4 means. Maybe it means we are the #4 interesting team to watch. I don't like the way the article portrays us but perhaps the nation likes to think of us as a random collection of headcases led by a man slowly being driven nuts in his constant war with the team.

The thing is, that described us in the past. I am not sure that is the present. If that web site wants to update every week, then let them update their narrative. Let them observe and report and not simply guess. Sure we should be watched. I think the team has the potential to do more than simply finish 8th in the west. It also can fail but as a fan, and as someone who thinks we have a favorable schedule, I think we may surprise a lot of people. At the least, we have the potential to surprise a lot of people.

I think we are a team to be watched. We may transition from a leaderless mess to something quite decent. If we do so, we are an interesting story.

 

[VF21]

Every Monday, BDL's Most Interesting Power Rankings track the teams most worthy of your attention.

Hey, at least we're not boring.

 

[parker]

The writer lost any credibility when he described Cousins and Rondo as "not especially good." They can be described in many different ways, but "not especially good" is not especially accurate.

 

[ArcoKings]

I hate these types of stories. Every time a writer says something 'positive' about the Kings he/she comes back with a jab or two.

 

[King Baller]

I'm not sure this guy is a Sports Writer. What does the following excerpt mean?

"Yet the Kings are still good enough to sit just one game behind the Utah Jazz for the No. 8 spot in the West. It's possible that Sacramento will end up in the postseason, the goal that owner Vivek Ranadive and the front office put forward this offseason when they assembled the team with little regard for long-term viability. Does that mean the Kings are good? Will we have to congratulate them on their success? Is up down?"

Exactly what does he mean by: "when they assembled the team with little regard for long-term viability"

Does trading Nik Staukas, a 1st and the right to swap picks with the 76er's for Cap Freedom hurt the Kings "long-term viability" ? I don't see how it does

 

[VF21]

The article is from Ball Don't Lie. Perhaps the author, Eric Freeman, is getting his Kings take from Kelly Dwyer.

 

[hrdboild]

The writer lost any credibility when he described Cousins and Rondo as "not especially good." They can be described in many different ways, but "not especially good" is not especially accurate.

I think that last line: "They're unstable, unpredictable, and not especially good" was meant in reference to the entire team, not just the Rondo/Cousins pairing but it was poorly written and ambiguous.

The unstable part is definitely true. Unpredictable? Sort of. You just take the games we "should win" and flip them to losses and take the games we "might win" and pencil in a W? and you'd be on the right track. Not especially good? I think that's fair to say about the team as a whole. If we were good we'd be .500 or better by now. We're a mess defensively but we're also capable of outplaying any team in the league for 10 minutes at a time (with apologies to full-strength Cleveland who we haven't faced yet this year, so I really don't know how we match up). That counts for something. It means we're relevant at the midpoint of the season for the first time in about 8 years. Of course I'd love to see nightly dominance and maybe even some tears on the opposing bench, but I'll settle for relevant.

 

[gunks]

The writer lost any credibility when he described Cousins and Rondo as "not especially good." They can be described in many different ways, but "not especially good" is not especially accurate.

Beat me to it.

 

[parker]

I think that last line: "They're unstable, unpredictable, and not especially good" was meant in reference to the entire team, not just the Rondo/Cousins pairing but it was poorly written and ambiguous.

The unstable part is definitely true. Unpredictable? Sort of. You just take the games we "should win" and flip them to losses and take the games we "might win" and pencil in a W? and you'd be on the right track. Not especially good? I think that's fair to say about the team as a whole. If we were good we'd be .500 or better by now. We're a mess defensively but we're also capable of outplaying any team in the league for 10 minutes at a time (with apologies to full-strength Cleveland who we haven't faced yet this year, so I really don't know how we match up). That counts for something. It means we're relevant at the midpoint of the season for the first time in about 8 years. Of course I'd love to see nightly dominance and maybe even some tears on the opposing bench, but I'll settle for relevant.

Yes, I see now that you are right about the author's intention. Certainly makes more sense, although lazy as Glenn suggests above.