RealGM

Top-10:

1) Lakers
2) Heat
3) Celtics
4) Magic
5) Bulls
6) Thunder
7) Spurs
8) Mavericks
9) Jazz
10) Bucks

_____

29) Kings

I think the Kings are way too low. This is what Stein said:

These very young Kings will definitely be bigger with Cousins and Dalembert, but don't bank on anything more than marginally better yet. Tyreke and Cousins, as a franchise duo, have some questions to answer.

I would like to think that the Kings were in the early 20s or even 18-20 range. But 29? The only team rated lower than us were the Twolves.

Great motivation for these guys. I hope Westphal posts this on the locker room door.

ESPN genuinely doesn't like the Kings.

This is why I never listen to any of espn's "experts" on any sport. If your not (insert big market here) they pretty much dont care.

the Suns are going to be horrendous and the Kings are at least 25

Sixers at 17 lol

I wouldn't worry about the rankings too much. First, it is ESPN. Who the hell expects them accurately rank a team like the Kings? And second, the Kings rank will change over time due to the relatively easy scheduling early into the season. I wouldn't be surprised the Kings will be the team to gain the biggest jump from their current rank.

I saw these rankings earlier myself. I couldn't believe we are ranked the second worst team only behind the T-Wolves. I mean, I know we are young/inexperienced and all that, but what do you expect? It is ESPN. It is laughable at some of these rankings that's why all you can really do is sit back, judge & laugh about it.

Stein is an idiot. No need to take anything he has to say seriously.

We should be early to mid 20s. I dont see how teams like the warriors, pistons, raptors, 76ers, pacers are ahead of us. We definitely have more talent and potential than all these teams to go along with similar records from last year.

sacking101 wrote:We should be early to mid 20s. I dont see how teams like the warriors, pistons, raptors, 76ers, pacers are ahead of us. We definitely have more talent and potential than all these teams to go along with similar records from last year.

We might have all the potential/talent in the world, but we have to go out and prove we are worthy of being mentioned as a team that's not in the lottery anymore.

KiNgSbOi wrote:

sacking101 wrote:We should be early to mid 20s. I dont see how teams like the warriors, pistons, raptors, 76ers, pacers are ahead of us. We definitely have more talent and potential than all these teams to go along with similar records from last year.

We might have all the potential/talent in the world, but we have to go out and prove we are worthy of being mentioned as a team that's not in the lottery anymore.

In case you have forgotten how to do math, only 16 teams make the playoffs...so any team in the "early to mid 20s" is still a lottery team.

@KIE: I might of, don't shoot me. Anyways, I meant to say DEEP into the lottery, top 8ish, I know up to 14 is considered lottery, but that's not what I meant to say.

I understand why are some kings fans upset, but i honestly don't care about these stuff, cuz if we win we are going to earn respect.

He has New Jersey ahead of us.

/end rant.

KF10 wrote:Top-10:

1) Lakers
2) Heat
3) Celtics
4) Magic
5) Bulls
6) Thunder
7) Spurs
8) Mavericks
9) Jazz
10) Bucks

_____

29) Kings

I think the Kings are way too low. This is what Stein said:

These very young Kings will definitely be bigger with Cousins and Dalembert, but don't bank on anything more than marginally better yet. Tyreke and Cousins, as a franchise duo, have some questions to answer.

I would like to think that the Kings were in the early 20s or even 18-20 range. But 29? The only team rated lower than us were the Twolves.

This is an idiot/popularity top ten ranking anyway - like all of Stein's garbage.

The Hawks aren't in here and they are easily better than the Bulls
(?!?!), Spurs, Bucks and Jazz.

What the Bulls are even DOING in the top ten completely mystifies me. Talk about needing to prove that you have improved since last year. that team may have underachieved slightly, but they don't work well together and a coaching change alone might not cut that.

The Bulls are waaay overated. The Spurs shouldn't be that high either. The Bucks, however, will be a top 10 team. Strong defense and depth everywhere.

The Kings are probably too low. I think this team needs a solid young point guard to drive this franchise. The bigs will be top notch for years to come. Evans is a natural two and is good at it so you're set there. Caspi is underated. Just the point guard....the achilees heel.

Wise1 wrote:The Bulls are waaay overated. The Spurs shouldn't be that high either. The Bucks, however, will be a top 10 team. Strong defense and depth everywhere.

The Kings are probably too low. I think this team needs a solid young point guard to drive this franchise. The bigs will be top notch for years to come. Evans is a natural two and is good at it so you're set there. Caspi is underated. Just the point guard....the achilees heel.

Once again the "Evans is not a PG" issue comes up

How many Kings games did you watch last year? Evans is the Kings PG, no question.

Evans needs the ball in his hands. The 2 guard who plays with Evans needs to have good handles because teams were/will stack their defense towards Evans. That 2 guard needs to be able to defend either guard spot and bring the ball up some of the time. This makes Evans more effective.

A player with the skills of Doug Christie would be perfect as a 2 guard alongside Evans. I would have liked the Kings to sign Wes Matthews but he signed in Oregon for big $$$.

The last thing the Kings need to put alongside Evans is a ball dominant PG who is six feet tall.

KB