Chisoxfn

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 12:25 PM) Now that Trump picked a chump, you just know Hillary is dying to pick a woman to be her running mate. I'm sure she's just a tad bit torn however. She's probably not wanting to push her luck going with an all female ticket. My prediction is she'll do so, however. She knows Trump is weak and has no chance in hell of beating her. I'm sure she'd much rather have a female pal in Washington to shoot the breeze with on a daily basis the next eight years rather than some gruff man. My guess is she's dying to pull the trigger and name a fellow female but a tad scared SOME members of the public might freak out and be afraid of two women in charge. Is Warren on the record saying she won't accept a Veep bid? This officially confirmed the fact that you are sexist. You assume a women is going to pick another women because they'll hypothetically get along more and than pose it as men being gruff, etc. Ridiculous.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jul 15, 2016 -> 04:46 AM) Spacing is indeed an issue with this team in NBA 2k16. I kind of like the fact that we are going to be a nasty team. We have some pretty "tough" players. I realize it isn't the modern NBA, but lets be clear about one thing, the Warriors were really the team that changed that and its been all of two years. You can still win, other ways, and play a more physical tough game. Now you are going to need to have guys that can get to the line to do that, and both Wade and Buckets can do that. It is definitely a different style, but doesn't mean you can't win being different.

Event is free to attend and the appetizers are complimentary. They have specially priced beers at the event (if you so choose). Matt or Dan can add more specifics or correct me if I'm mistaken.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 04:36 PM) So any parents in here want to inform about how their kids' friends have been raised. Anybody have any kids 20 to 30? What is coming out of their mouths in regard to college and the working world? Do they assume they are going to make big bucks? Do they care either way? And commitment that we've read about. I was in more than 10 weddings for sure between 22 and 30. Are kids getting married? Give me an insight into what you are seeing in your world about Millenials and Xers at home and work please. Greg - I am 32 and a millenial, have a job (am in mid to upper management for a large financial institution), am married (with two kids). Vast majority of my friends are married, with about half having kids / in-process of having kids, and most with some form of decent jobs in the grand scheme of things (all doing a variety of different things in their careers and in most cases, people I have known since middle-school / high-school as my colleagues I met at work would skew it more in the direction of good jobs, etc). Bottom line....22 year olds don't get married as much and have kids anyway these days (you go to school, don't start careers to later because of it, etc). Its just part of life and to have financial security it takes a bit more time to get independent, etc. I don't think a lot has really changed and a bunch of people hang onto one measly stat and go crazy over it (and such stat may not actually mean anything). What a shock...most 18 year olds don't have kids and / or are married...I can use that data to say look, millenials aren't getting married (no...18 year olds aren't getting married and that is largely a consistent trend over the past 30 years).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 13, 2016 -> 10:12 AM) Re: the phone/electronic topic, i'm not opposed to it, and it has nothing to do with me not understanding technology, but i'd rather my son never looked at a phone or tablet except to watching a tv show or movie. My 4 year old becomes a monster when I try to take the thing away. I'd prefer that he go play outside and explore bugs or something than sit and play subway surfer for an hour. I don't necessarily buy the "tv rots your brain" theory my parents used to throw around, but I'm sure there's SOMETHING to that. If anything it just makes kids more anti-social, even if we are becoming a more "internet-social" world. I'd rather my kid be the minority there and actually learn some people skills since most of his peers won't have that in 15-20 years. It is proven that technology, especially at young ages, does have direct impacts on children's attention spans and moods. When you think about it, it kind of makes sense. I'm a huge believer in minimal screen time, given my kids current age and allowing them to be creative and to really learn the real skills associated with "concentration" and basic things vs. the sensory overload that comes with a lot of the screen stuff. That said, there are also benefits of the tech, whether it is leveraging it to further educate or leveraging it for other avenues. And yes, somewhere in there, you should be able to leverage it for entertainment.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 12, 2016 -> 09:58 AM) Wow, that's some terrible luck. I think my card has been compromised once, but I always seem to be a possible victim on those big store hacks. Anyone spending lots of money on Prime Day? So far my wife and I have bought some odds and ends, but most of the deals are Amazon specific devices (have enough of them) or crap we don't need. The real question is where the heck does lost spend his money.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2016 -> 03:03 PM) What do we consider the Rangers and the Giants? Going back to 2010 the Rangers payroll was the bottom of the league, the Giants was top 10 but behind the White Sox. What do we consider the Cardinals? Rangers & Giants are big market teams, however, I understand your point, that they were able to contend despite having payroll's below that of the White Sox.

Send.

Interesting nugget on Niko. After he came back from his surgery, he shot 44.5% from 3 on 137 attempts...6.3 attempts per game. As a reference point, Curry shot 45.4% on 11 attempts per game.

QUOTE (SouthSideSale @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 03:56 PM) I'm honestly not expect two max players. Maybe they don't get CP3 and they instead get a guy like Griffin or trade for Cousins or even Westbrook. Maybe these three stars surprise us and mesh. Maybe they don't and Rondo leaves and we nab a star PG. Well see. I can say I'm 100% more confident in landing a star this way than not signing Rondo and Wade. I agree...I think two is unlikely, but I think we can get one and that makes us a pretty damn competitive team, imo. One that could be the right break or just one more move away from actually winning a title. A lot of this is a who the hell knows, but still, I feel better about next year today than I did a week ago.

Summary of what George Carl said about Rajon Rondo earlier today on ESPN 1000 (copied from another forum):

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 02:34 PM) It's still too tight if we assume Wade is here. Butler+Wade is about 43 mil (haven't seen exact # for next year). Two full-freight maxes already takes you barely over 102. Even if you assume 25 each, you have less than 10 mil for the rest of the roster, which doesn't really work. I'll put it this way: the Warriors have Klay and Draymond at only 34 next year and they will have to give up basically everyone to keep Durant and Steph (though they may take less). Do they have to give them up? I presumed they would have bird rights, so they could just resign everyone and pay absurd luxury tax. Am I mistaken? (referring to the Warriors).

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 02:19 PM) When talking about cap for 2 max players next year, what does trading Lopez do? Isn't his deal perceived as pretty good relative to the contracts thrown around? You move Lopez and you are very close, barring some huge injury, you could move Lopez no problem.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 11:41 AM) I missed the fact that Wade got a player option. Obviously that changes the math considerably, though he's not going to do much recruiting if he opts out. Yeah - It also allows the potential for Wade to be one of the guys who helps create flexibility (I think I alluded it to one of my posts somewhere).

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) People that are bad at math apparently. Butler, Lopez, Wade and even 50 mil for two FA comes out to like 106, and the other 8 players (I think you need at least 13) won't work for free. I think the difference is my definition of "in the neighborhood vs. your definition of in the neighborhood".

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:23 AM) Giannis isn't even worth discussing as he is a restricted free agent next year and Milwaukee will almost assuredly just match any offer. Fair point. Realistically, I think they land Chris Paul and the question is does Blake go with them or do guys like Niko and internal people take steps up where we look more at Paul plus one or two solid players (and than know that when Wade rolls of the books the following year, you can again add some youth). This wasn't the strategy I imagined the Bulls took...but I see plenty of possibilities of a good team. I see zero possibilities of being the front runners for the title, but I don't know anyteam that could do anything about that today (given what is on the Warriors roster) but that doesn't mean you should just give up and the reality is you never know what could happen. Realistically, we all know that a year from now is a long way off, but the Bulls could actually be in a pretty solid spot to lure and entice some high profile guys.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:20 AM) What? Max deals are higher for older guys. That's why Barnes is like 4-94 and Horford is like 4-113. And once again, they're not close to a second max. They would have like 17 mil for 9 roster spots. Yes - I am referring to Giannis who would get a smaller deal than the 30M you reference (and than you'd have a Paul who would be at that projected 28.8M number). And you can really clear space with all the minimum roster holds, etc. There are some people who have pulled together some pretty detailed charts saying it absolutely is doable (or was at the 107). Doesn't mean you have a deep roster, but you are in the neighborhood.

Bottom line, we could argue all we want about whether the Bulls can offer full max or within 2 or 3M per player if you went two max guys, but the reality is, given the cap increases, etc...that puts you in as competitive position as anyone else and that team would still have pieces like Wade / Butler / Lopez. Now they have to be competitive this year or everything goes to hell (and Wade better damn well enjoy his stay here).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) Yeah but I didn't add him because he's not leaving. Durant & Lebron will be free agents too. Again, not saying they will be leaving, but you never know what could happen.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:17 AM) Their plan is probably to try and get Cousins anyway. What is his contract status? FA in 2 years, I believe.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:14 AM) Who are the two max guys they are going to get though? The only max-type guys available next year are Paul, Griffin, Westbrook and Antetokounmpo. And it seems odd that Rondo just pursued and recruited Wade only to be replaced a year later by Paul. Technically, isn't Steph a free agent. If you sign Giannis you would have room for a max to Giannis and a max to someone in the older age max group (given how the max deals range). Plus, Lebron & Durant will presumably opt-out again and be free agents.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 10:09 AM) Your math on what is on the books is way off. Wade, Butler and Lopez's contracts alone are higher than that. My fault...damn hoops hype must not have been summing up the option years for hte other guys. So yes, it would be doable, but you'd have a ton of no namers. Still that is assuming that all those stars can't agree on a few M per year less amongst themselves.

Let me ask a hypothetical. A year from now, if the Bulls sign Chris Paul (and only Chris Paul) and lets just say Blake Griffin...what do people think of a Paul / Wade / Butler / Griffin / Lopez, lineup? Pretty much everyone on that roster is capable of playing D and scoring. You have some older guys, but also youth and coming off the bench you have essentially our home-grown picks? If you asked us a month ago, if that would even be possible, I think everyone would have said no chance, but I'd say that is a pretty darn solid team (both offensively and defensively). Yes, spacing may not be the best (Butler would need to improve his 3 point shot, but Paul is a good three point shooter), but it should be able to play with pace and play quality defense with a potentially solid bench (depending on how Portis / Doug / Valentine / Grant / others emerge). Is it a guaranteed champion, no, but its a legit top 5 NBA roster.

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jul 7, 2016 -> 09:56 AM) The old projection was only 107, so I don't see how. They have $50.9M on the books for next year (Wade / Butler / Lopez / Doug / Snell / Jerian Grant / Bobby Portis / Valentine). Cap at 107 would give you 56.1M in available cap space. Two max guys FA's with 7-9 years of experience are projected to cost approximately 28.8M each). So under the previous regime, if we essentially moved Snell, we would have had the room (including draft holds / roster holds). Felicio is someone we could get minimal cap stuff for as is Dinwiddie. Basically under the old scenario it was totally doable, without any major sacrifices. Under the new cap, where we are down 5M, the reality is, the way to do it would be either by moving Lopez or by getting existing players or the FA's to take slightly less than max money (or essentially dump everyone but Wade / Lopez / Butler (which is possible). Wade could opt out and sign for slightly less (but Bulls could add another year to make it worth Wade's while). Bottom line, if guys wanted to come here, they could make it work. Or we get one max guy and one guy damn near max money while keeping Wade.

I think Chris Paul will be one of the players we sign next year.