Chisoxfn

QUOTE (greg775 @ Apr 10, 2016 -> 12:39 PM) Excellent post. You are right. We're in trouble as a nation. The thing that really confuses me is tying sports into all this. Tons of companies have downsized and gotten rid of so many workers who used to make a good wage ... once these people leave the work force they find it difficult to get back in at a liveable wage especially if they are over 35 or 40 ... so many people have not had a raise in years, told they are "lucky to have a job," and so many people have worse benefits and have to pay way more for health care, etc. Yet with this decrease in money out there ... sports teams have no problem filling their stadiums, people have no problem paying 30 bucks for parking for a baseball game and spending 50 bucks for four beers and 50 more for hot dogs and snacks at games. Where are they getting this money? Is everybody maxing out 10 credit cards??? Greg - I'd like to think I make pretty good money, but when I go to a game and see people order a few beers each, plenty of food, etc, I just look and go, damn how can you spend that much. Than I remind myself I'm a total cheapo but I can't justify it. Or say I take the kids to an amusement park, we bring snacks, etc, maybe splurge on something, but than I'll see the family who has boughten everyone souvenir this and churro that (each of them, no sharing, etc) and I think, good lord, you just spent 100 bucks on churros and drinks. To answer part of your question, sure, some people just make more money or this is their one "splurge", but I hypotheticize (and maybe this is purely just to justify my being cheap and pragmatic) that in many cases it is just people living beyond there means (pay check to pay check) when they shouldn't. Please note, I fully grasp there are situations where you can't avoid living paycheck to paycheck and when you are doing that purely to meet your housing costs and food costs, great, but things like spending money on this are way outside of that path, imo. And it is a problem that effects people poor and rich as it isn't like the rich are ever satisified so it might be more likely they overstretch them self (keeping up with the Jones) than the person living day by day.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 10, 2016 -> 05:19 AM) One thing I have noticed the past decade or two is workers now basically want all other workers to earn less and receive lower benefits. Whenever a group goes on strike or there are other compensation issue it seems the popular opinion is suck it up, others have it worst. That seems dangerous to me and furthers to dissolution of the middle class. From auto workers to teachers we don't seem to mind seeing other people's real wages fall. I understand more the public sector jobs because those relate to our taxes. It seems that we are cheering more profits for owners and less money for our neighbors. I'm concerned about what that does to our economy. We already demand that the wealthiest Americans pay less in taxes so they can create more jobs, now we want them to pay those people less. That shifts both the tax burden and every other economic stress to the working class. We just went through a period of record profits for many sectors in the economy just wages remained stagnant and unemployment did not drop as fast. Are we really better off as a nation if wealth is concentrated and held at the top and not "trickling down"? I see this in Mexico all the time. People are either extremely wealthy or barely hanging on. The middle class there is razor thin. Biggest problem in this country is the gap between executive pay and most people who work at a business. These failed CEO's make 100 million while the rest of a companies payroll can be less than that. Maybe not the biggest, but it is a legit issue, imo. And I'm all far capitalism, but some of what happens is just pure greed. Note: My exception to this rule is if you are a founder or led some huge massively profitable undertaking during your realm. In most cases, if you are taking on an existing big time corporation, yes, you are fully entitled to be paid and paid handsomely, but I draw the line somewhere. Some of the public company CEO payouts are just massive.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 9, 2016 -> 05:24 AM) It's pretty easy to fix CPS actually but nobody wants to think about it. Raise taxes in Chicago. The rest of us pay a pretty penny where we live for good schools. My taxes in Chicago were 25% of what they are in a good school district. You want great schools? You have to pay. I think those taxes tend to go into the facilities vs. compensation for teachers (in many instances). At least that is how it works in California.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Apr 9, 2016 -> 06:59 PM) I 100% endorse. I just donit myself. Neighbors and my kids thimk im nuts

Really sucks. b**** all you want about the Cubs, they were a talented and fun team to watch and Kyle was a fun hitter with a ton of offensive potential.

Lets see how this teams responds to some adversity. Get back in this ball game boys!!!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 01:16 PM) Crime rates started falling prior to the passage and implementation of the 1994 crime bill. It peaked in 1991 if you go by the FBI's UCR stats. What could have driven it? Lead. Seriously. We know the effects that lead poisoning can have on younger people--loss of intelligence, less control, more aggression--and the correlation between crime rates and lead exposure is really strong. That link is from a few years ago, and there's only been more research on it since then. It's obviously not the only factor, but it does seem like it could be a major one. I got to say, that was a really interest read SS. Thanks for sharing that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 01:16 PM) Crime rates started falling prior to the passage and implementation of the 1994 crime bill. It peaked in about 1992 if you go by the FBI's UCR stats. What could have driven it? Lead. Seriously. We know the effects that lead poisoning can have on younger people--loss of intelligence, less control, more aggression--and the correlation between crime rates and lead exposure is really strong. That link is from a few years ago, and there's only been more research on it since then. It's obviously not the only factor, but it does seem like it could be a major one. I agree it started to decline a bit leading up to it, but there was still modest correlation. I don't know that I buy into the lead is why so many people committed violent crimes. But maybe I'm underselling that. I guess the struggle I have is without anything changing from a policy perspective, how exactly / why exactly would violent crime drastically be reduced. It isn't like the entire control turned wealthy or you went from some great depression to rolling times (two things which could explain at least some shift in crime rates) so I have a hard time driving what exactly resulted in rates dropping by that staggering of a percentage when everything stays the status quo. Essentially, I don't have enough evidence which would tell me to "ignore" the fact that the largest decrease in this shift occurred subsequent to a significant policy change related to crime. I mean, do we honestly think that if you were beheaded for drinking impaired, people wouldn't think a little more before doing it or your hands would be chopped off for stealing, you wouldn't see a reduction in related crimes? Whether that is the right policy or not, is separate, but I just can't fathom that being the case.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) Both Hillary and Bill have said that the 90's "tough on crime" stance and in particular the 1994 bill were a mistake, in hindsight. Hillary has campaigned against our incarceration rates. It's weird that he's choosing to defend it now. Her support started out very high, but I think it's been slipping somewhat lately as the primary drags on. I believe Bill has said there were components of the bill that were mistakes, I don't know that he has flat out said the whole bill was a mistake. The world isn't a vaccuum and you can't always get everything perfect and 100% in line with what you want. Part of politics is negotiating to get to the best plausible outcome.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 01:01 PM) No, it really didn't. Clinton himself has even renounced it in the past. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. It's terrible. Nowhere did you show the actual statistics, just one article that mentions a study which indicated a modest correlation (which is still a correlation) between incarceration and crime rates. Let me actually show you the statistics since my post specifically highlighted that the stats back the fact that violent crime was reduced significantly over that time. I also admitted there were flaws to the legislation and I have previously posted about how staggering some of the incarceration statistics are. How much correlation exists between the reduction in crime rates and this major piece of legislation, I don't know, but the actual statistics are pretty staggering (I don't have perfect statistics that line up to precisely when the bill was put in place, but close enough). Is it just coincidence that crime rates took huge drops? If so, what would have driven such significant reductions? I'm kind of curious (not an expert but I don't have a plausible theory).

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 12:58 PM) Bill can be both accurate in what he was saying and really dumb to have said it. The two are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe his statements were dumb and I think he is not afraid to state that he thinks what they did was worth it and right. Why should I have any issue with him making that type of statement and being strong about it. It was rooted in his devote feelings and belief to something he thinks was an accomplishment, not a real issue, and he went at them point on. It is a reason a lot of people liked Bill when he was president (he was a pretty open shooter and wasn't afraid for speaking his mind from time to time). This isn't Trump being a blowhard speaking his mind, this is speaking your mind about something you feel strongly about and I am sure he can articulate the various facts for why he still believes it was the right thing. All that said, I don't know that Hillary would have wanted Bill to do this (as it really isn't a major issue in her campaign as she is generating 80%+ in the African american vote despite the concern from the black lives matter movement).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 12:34 PM) "If you're against my bill that's helped expand mass incarceration of non-violent criminals, you support giving crack to 13 year olds and having them commit a murder!" --a good, coherent response to protesters. Go back and look at the violent crime statistics before and after that bill was passed. You can say there were some issues, but the statistics would say that it did plenty good in terms of reducing violent crime stats.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 12:51 PM) Yes, Jerry Reinsdorf. Gar wanted Lawrence Frank. Pax wanted Doug Collins and Gar wanted Brown / Frank. http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/john-pa...ibodeau-report/

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) I know everyone wants to blast them for the Thibs debable, but let's not forget who gave him his first head coaching job when no one else would. Jerry Reinsdorf. IIRC, the candidates Gar wanted were Mike Brown and someone else whose a pretty failed head coach. Pax had other preferences as well and JR pushed Thibs.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) gtfo I didn't say he was a master roster creator or a great GM. I think he's a lousy GM. We could all get pissed about not drafting Draymond Greene but in general, I think we have drafted pretty well under Gar & Pax. Basically put, it isn't bad drafting for why we are in the position we are in. It is bad roster creation and a complete inability to work with others and just in general be a prick. He has an inability to make trades and roll the dice with guys and truly create a great team (albeit injuries early can absolve him a bit, his recent stubbornness can not be ignored).

QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 11:12 AM) own my own business . Got my deputy coming in to take over. Took me a long ass time to get to the point where I could afford to take somewhat of a step back once and awhile. Been at it for 5 years now. What kind of business? If you don't mind me asking?

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 10:43 AM) when i reading up on hinkie, i was reminded so much on gar forman. while catching up on gar, i forgot he was an asst to floyd. that should have meant something at the time and no-one caught it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gar_Forman but the question i wanted to ask, is hinkie any better than gar??? i just don't know enuf of this to come up with an answer. Gar is an ass, but I do think he has a pretty good eye for talent. He might not be perfect, but every guy will miss from time to time and while we can point to some of the Bulls misses, they have historically been one of the better drafting teams under Pax / Gar, especially when you consider where they were typically picking. Gar has plenty of issues, but I think from a pure talent evaluation perspective, I like him over Hinkie. Supposedly Hinkie has trouble working with people (not sure how much is true vs. Jerry Collangelo driving that wedge) and I think like Gar, both are best suited in a more assistant capacity than a true GM. Hinkie would great to have in Chicago (but not as a GM). Would love his analytical mind as I think it is a valuable resource that would go great with a GM who appreciates the analytics but also has an adapt eye for talent and a strong ability to work with others. Honestly, I really wonder if we see Hoiberg move to the front office. Would be curious if he'd do it. Or whether Doug Collins would still be willing to take an assistant role to help Hoiberg? Either way, I really hope we see at least some sort of shakeup in the front office (it is imperative, imo).

QUOTE (Kalapse @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 10:40 AM) Uribe's totally going deep today, it's inevitable. Hopefully the Sox are up 8 runs when it happens. PROFUNDO! It is okay, Uribe is going to be this years Geoff Blum. We'll pick him up and he'll hit a HR for the Sox that matters in the end!

I hope he will be okay. I really like Schwarber and wish he could be on the Sox. Would freaking love having a bat like that penciled into our lineup for the next 6+ years.

Jim...since I blasted you earlier on your F150 comment, I should point out, I absolutely love how trucks ride. Albeit, if money was no matter, I'd go with the Tundra, but F150's are really nice vehicles, imo. I prefer the more truck riding SUV's as well to the car based versions, but that is more because I like sitting higher, etc.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 09:20 AM) I would never buy a honda SUV ever again, the 4WD is crap IMO and the build quality was s***ty. My wife's cherokee is 200% better than her CRV I have the exact opposite impression. My Pilot has 175,000 miles and outside of getting rear ended a few months back which is what made us relegate it to basically just 3rd car that is a junker, it is the only issue we had. I've known multiple people with Jeeps and I don't know one person who kept one for any extended time who didn't have issues and that included major issues. Even my dad, who loves his Limited, Diesel Jeep (1.5 years old now with about 40K miles), has had quite a few issues (he still loves it) but it is stuff I would have been annoyed about if I owned the car (by the way, my fear with owning my Hyundai is these same sorts of build quality issues which usually you never identify until you own a car for at least a few years). I will say Jeeps drive very nice and are really really beautiful cars. If you are doing real 4x4 I would also agree...I wouldn't buy a Honda if I needed legit offroading (just not at all in there wheel house). Jeeps off-road functionality is second to none when it comes to that....and if i was going luxury, I'd go with Audi AWD or Volvo's SUV with All wheeler drive. That new Volvo SUV is absolutely amazing (If I wasn't such a tight wad, I'd look at it as our eventual replacement for our highlander).

Just win baby...just win!!!

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 10:32 AM) They first brought in Jerry and now they are bringing in Bryan. All of this has been executed by Jerry and I believe that is who Ninetrain was referencing. he was initially brought in as a consultant and he has taken a much stronger role and strong voice and pushed Hinkie out. I don't disagree with Hinkie's overall philosophy to maximize picks, etc, but who they drafted left plenty to be desired and didn't fit from a roster construction perspective and I haven't seen him make subsequent trades to make it work either. It is one thing to get the picks and come up with the strategy, but you still have to actually make good picks. And Bryan has a history of being a pretty good talent evaluator. Good track record from Phoenix to Toronto. Bottom line, if you told me Jerry was going to bring in the Colangelos, I would be extremely happy. They are extremely well respected in this league. Honestly, if things went sour sooner, I wouldn't have been surprised if Jerry considered the Colangelo's (I believe Jerry & Jerry are relatively good friends), but it might have been too many egos for JR.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 10:29 AM) They are bringing in Bryan to be GM, not Jerry. Jerry is president of Basketball ops. Nepotism And I disagree that Hinkie drafted BPA with Embiid. his injury issues weren't a secret and everything people said has come home to roost They first brought in Jerry and now they are bringing in Bryan. All of this has been executed by Jerry and I believe that is who Ninetrain was referencing. he was initially brought in as a consultant and he has taken a much stronger role and strong voice and pushed Hinkie out. I don't disagree with Hinkie's overall philosophy to maximize picks, etc, but who they drafted left plenty to be desired and didn't fit from a roster construction perspective and I haven't seen him make subsequent trades to make it work either. It is one thing to get the picks and come up with the strategy, but you still have to actually make good picks. And Bryan has a history of being a pretty good talent evaluator. Good track record from Phoenix to Toronto.

QUOTE (bmags @ Apr 8, 2016 -> 09:27 AM) AFter trashing Gabriel, I now want to link to this very good article by him http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/04/07/gab...-a-draft-board/ Very good read. It is interesting that teams don't have guys on the board who maybe get varying grades (as in, we'll take him in this round, but not another round). I presume there must be some flexiblity to the extent the move down or I supose those guys are just on the board because they like them enough to draft, they just get rated lower on the list.