Chisoxfn

How much of the Butler being a leader / rubbing people the wrong way is an issue because of Jimmy vs. an issue because guys who were better and were used to being better than him aren't now and thus, a little jealous / still look at him as the little guy. http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/04/12/report..._medium=twitter You think about Jimmy and how he took Dougy under his win. You think about him playing hard and putting in tons of work and leading by example from that perspective. Two major, positive checks from a "leadership" perspective. On the flip side, you think of him publicly calling out Fred, that would be a knock. I've seen some comments from MJD which talk about his concerns on offense. I've always thought MJD was a pretty astute guy and he basically said he's not sure how they will figure out how to solve the offense. Not sure if that is a shot at either Butler / Rose / Hoiberg or more just a shot that the way they play, it just isn't going to work together.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 01:05 PM) More specifically, Nathaniel Stoltz said he was built like Trout physically. Body comp, but not tools comp. Maybe I saw Engel on an odd day, but I don't see a build like Trout (at least not today's version of Trout). Trout is one of the strongest, shorter, stockier guys I've seen. I don't remember Engel being as stocky / strong. That isn't a knock, Trout just has a really unique body type. He does have a ton of physical tools / attributes though (Engel).

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 10:04 PM) chisoxfn, were you on 670 tonight? talking about the bulls with lawrence holmes? Not me. If I was, I'd have been saying how they should ditch Hoiberg and Gar at a minimum, so I'm going to guess it wasn't me. I'm 10000 percent over Gar and pretty much 100% over Hoiberg. I know that Hoiberg isn't going to go anywhere.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 07:01 PM) This town hall was a great idea for Trump. He needs to drag out his family more if they're willing. Ivanka in particular. She's a very impressive person and I assume she'll become a bigger part of the campaign now that she had her child. I do agree his family is pretty normal (for being billionaires) and Ivanka is impressive. All of them are pretty articulate people and seem like good kids / adults.

QUOTE (InTheDriversSeat @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 01:58 PM) The Hawk made a comment during the Twins home opener on Monday. It was early in the game when Avisail went up to bat. Hawk said that he watched Avi's homerun on Saturday from his home (at Granger, Indiana) using his iPad. He said he used his iPad because "Nobody carries WGN in South Bend, Unbelievable." Apparently Ken is still not aware that WGN games are aired on free, over-the-air HD television in South Bend. One would think that someone from WGN Sports or the Sox front office could explain what's going on. I wonder how Hawk was able to watch online streaming since northern Indiana is included in the White Sox 4-state 'streaming blackout zone'. Perhaps MLB exempts members of the media or team front office employees from blackouts. . There are some special log-ins that get you full access. I used to have one, it was amazing (especially because it was free).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Apr 12, 2016 -> 05:48 AM) No. He got ripped for thinking he knows more than doctors do. He stayed out way longer than was necessary. With the Bulls doctors, I don't blame him.

QUOTE (LDF @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 05:08 PM) i do not know if the comment of his son is soo bad. i am at a lost here. i understand but he is playing the family first thingy. It is just more of his laissez faire, doesn't care attitude. It just doesn't come off well. I expect people to be pissed when you miss the playoffs. The greats all have that edge. I can't imagine Lebron making that type of comment or Steph or anyone else really. I see people like Taj run through walls for the Bulls or Noah or even Jimmy (he's said dumb things about season being over, but you knew he'd doing everything in his power to play). Rose has got to be as unbelievably unlikeable of a star as to ever walk the face of the earth (for someone who hasn't done something illegal).

Did Rose actually make a comment a week ago that if he missed the playoffs that just meant he got to spend more time with his son? I mean, its totally believable, but did he say that out loud? What are the odds he is gone...98%?

In the words of Peggy Hill....HOOOO YEAHHHHH!!!

I later answered my own question. Butler said he owes it to his teammates, fans, etc to play since he has already missed so much time. I think it is absurd and Bulls should have just sat him (given his knee issue). If Thibs had done this with Butler (post injury) he'd have been run out of dodge.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 10:38 AM) It's not corrupt - the selection of a candidate is a party process, not an election. That said, I agree with you that the ideal model is for all party races to be voted, via primaries, in every state, without any Supers or Nationals or any of the other garbage. I'd certainly prefer that. I fully agree.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 09:55 AM) Not really. The board is elected by the stockholders to represent them. And it is the board who makes decisions on the CEO. Technically strange is right, either way, board approves compensation as well (not just CEO's). Yeah, they don't look at chisoxfn's individual, but select committees approval total raises throughout organization, etc.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 12:04 PM) Rose, Pau, Taj, E'Twaun all inactive for the final two games Why not Butler?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 06:45 AM) Travis Yost ‏@travisyost NHL playoffs: 1 v 14 2 v 17 3 v 5 4 v 9 6 v 13 7 v 10 8 v 11 12 v 15 Hawks are lucky enough to be in the 3 vs 5 matchup How does this work?

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 09:02 AM) Wal-Mart's CEO makes $26M or so. The company has 1.2 million US employees. If the CEO cuts his pay to $2M, that gives every employee in the company an extra $20 per year. It might seem like a nice gesture and might make the news, but the extra $20 per year isn't going to make a difference for employees. Now, that's just one example and there very well could be companies where the CEO salary could be cut enough to make a significant difference in the lives of employees, but you need to remember the context of the number of employees. I'll give you a random person and you tell me. So Regeneron CEO made $42M in a company with 3000 employees. That would equate to roughly 14K per employee. I'm not saying it should all be split and I'm sure the company has plenty of employees who are entirely fairly compensated and that is fair in the grand scheme. But average gap between CEO and non CEO pay has continued to widen significantly and that means from a wealth distribution perspective, you get more wealth accumulated in the few vs. the man. I'm not a socialist but any decent economist would tell you that there is a tipping point between when good healthy capitalist impulses and something the gaps we have today at the top levels. And this is coming from someone who is a lower level executive who one day has aspirations to have a C (for Chief) in front of my title

By the way, lots of good discussion in here and I'll be the first to admit, I'm not the answer man. I do know that a lot of studies have proven the fact that money doesn't fix education and the reality is, as Tex and Caufields stories have both alluded, the more lower income the district, the larger the uphill battle to educate (from a test score perspective, etc). Reality is, the more affluent the area, generally speaking, the more importance put on education and in general the better role models the individuals have around them and thus they are in a better position to succeed (and can afford more slip-ups in theory). In fact, the reality is, the biggest way to improve education in lower income areas would be by strengthening the family unit and having more parental involvement, etc. Hard to do in the case that you have stats where 1/3 African American males will be incarcerated (as discussed previously), when crime is high, and when the reality is, you struggle to know where your next meal is and in many cases, don't even feel safe at home. Think about how stress can impact any of us and than imagine whatever we are stressing about (with the exception of health...health is everything) and it probably pails in comparison to what the average 13 year old growing up in a really really bad neighborhood.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Apr 11, 2016 -> 06:58 AM) Again it's Cowley so take it with a grain of salt, but he mentions again the undermining of Thibs saying there are several sources including players saying it's true, as the beginning of the Bulls falling apart. Says Gar/Pax blamed the injuries on Thibs minutes. http://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/indiana...e-gets-started/ Even the Trib is starting to report some smoke behind Gar / Pax and some seperation between the two. While KC eventually reported he expects nothing to change, given that you are even seeing reports like that coming from the Trib tells me that there is a real posibility (should be a real conclusion) that Gar will be out. The messaging essentially says, look, Gar won out and convinced people, but Pax hasn't lost it, look at what he thought should have happened.

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.