Soxbadger

I have no inside information, but I think that a guy like Rios was not made for a Manager like Ozzie.

QUOTE (Brian @ Jun 27, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) That better not happen. They should just take the winner of the SEC title game. Anything else should be outlawed. It will likely happen. This year the SEC had 1 and 2, in this system how would they have kept out one of them? Basically its a mess if you have a bunch of teams with similar records going into the conference championship. If you have upsets and 5-6 teams have the same record there is no guarantee that the conference champions will get in. The Big 10 tried to make the conference champion mandatory, but the SEC fought it.

This is going to blow up as soon as the SEC gets 2 teams at the expense of another power conference getting 1.

They are rich athletes, there stupid ass agent should offer to get them a courtesy car whenever they want.

Okay so due to conflict of interest I think most attorneys would agree a reasonable solution would be to bar former justices from arguing at the Supreme Court level. But even if we were to allow it, Scalia is not exactly an orator. In fact Scalia only had 1 case in 1976 before the Supreme Court. The fact is, if you want to be a rich lawyer, you are not angling to be an academic or judge. If Scalia wanted money, he would have gone into private practice. Most of these judges want power/influence. (edit) There are other options, you can have retention votes etc.

Do you believe all judges are bought and paid for? Because that is the natural end of your argument.

Do you know how many Supreme Court justices have ever been impeached? 1 Over 200 years ago, and he was acquitted. Impeachment is not a practical solution to the problem of the Supreme Court. As for Supreme Court Justices moving on after they leave, so what? A Supreme Court Justice can retire, they are not duty bound to serve until their death. The point is if they didnt think theyd be there for 20-30 years, maybe they would be more careful in their rulings and actually try and have some consistency. It also would avoid the nonsense of Justices stepping down so that a President can replace them with their ideology, etc. Appointment for life is just not something that resonates with modern America.

It really doesnt matter. Whatever happens, you just play by the new rules. So if the court strikes it down, you either pass it again, you take on the court or you do nothing. If you want change, attack the Court. Propose an amendment to the Constitution, that Supreme Court justices can be recalled, term limits, whatever. For to long the Supreme Court has gone unchecked, its time for Congress to grow a spine.

I dont think the Bulls are really a player for Howard. I think other teams are willing to bid even without a guaranty of Howard signing an extension. The Bulls really have no assets that make sense for that type of gamble, so unless Howard comes out and says he wants to be in Chicago, I doubt they offer more than draft picks and salary filler.

No one, the likely MVP winners for the next 5 seasons are already in the NBA.

If we are going by #1 seed its IMPOSSIBLE to improve. I was going by eliminated in the first round of the playoffs.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) Well, you somehow trade for the Next MVP that is better than Rose and there you have it. Well in order to equal this years team all they have to do is make the playoffs, thats not really setting the bar high when 50% of the teams in the East make it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) Well, ok, excluding having the second coming happen and Jesus waving his arms over Derrick's knee, I'd love to hear how this is possible. Bulls lost in the first round of the playoffs. If Rose gets back before the playoffs start, I think most people would have them in the 2nd round unless they are the 7 or 8 seed.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) This is what I am all about. I'd move Noah, and sit on Deng. Deng will be back in full for 13-14, as will Rose. Why would the Bulls want to sit on Deng? Its not even 100% that he will have surgery. For all we know hell have major issues in 2 years due to playing through a pretty significant injury. Deng has now suffered this injury twice in his career, there could be a concern about his long term durability.

Its absolutely possible for them to improve next season. The Bulls have glaring weaknesses and if they were willing to be aggressive they could find ways to fix those problems. Its not like the Bulls are going to be better off 2 years from now, because they already have over 50 mil committed to Boozer, Noah, Deng, Rose and will have to give extensions to Asik/Gibson. So even if the plan was to amnesty Boozer, at that point you probably have Asik/Gibson costing about 10 mil together, so its not a huge savings. If you really wanted to make a move you would likely have to trade Deng at that point anyway. If the Bulls arent realistically going to be good next year, they might as well trade Deng for whatever they can get, amnesty Boozer and start working for 2013/14 with Rose/Noah as the 2 pieces to build around. You may not even want to match Asik's salary in this scenario. If the Bulls arent going to do that, they may as well try and get better.

Right, they are content to not spend more money to improve this team. Whether or not they have a lower payroll than last year is not really relevant, the point is about the Bulls not aggressively trying to improve. Which you seem to be now agreeing with.

Right but other outlets are questioning whether the Bulls would trade Deng at all. I have no inside sources, so I gave BOTH sides. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/25/rep...ed-to-warriors/ I just dont really see the Bulls really wanting to make a lot of moves. They seem pretty content with their team and if they happen to get lucky and win a Championship, well thats just great.

Just have to wait and see.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) I've gotten the impression that they've thought a lot about moving him, Deng knows they've thought a lot about moving him, but they aren't going to move him just to move him, they're going to move him if a deal comes along that helps them long term, particularly with the luxury tax line...and teams are going to be loathe to simply help the Bulls out in exchange for Luol Deng. No one is saying to move him just to move him, the Bulls just dont make aggressive moves. A lot of places are saying the Bulls assured Deng they wont trade him, I cant find the source and other Bulls writers say that the Bulls have contacted some lottery teams, so who knows. That being said, the lack of creativity from the front office is mind blowing.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 26, 2012 -> 07:17 AM) Without the mandate, the ACA cannot stand as written. You either have to strike down the entire act, uphold all of it, or perform a rewrite and just call it a tax. Without the mandate, as written, you'd effectively bankrupt the entire health insurance industry, and the justices know that. To put it in simple terms, no mandate = wait until your sick or on the way to the hospital to buy insurance...after you leave hospital, cancel it. They cannot reject you for pre-existing conditions, so there is no point in paying for insurance until you need it. That won't just bankrupt the entire insurance industry, it will bankrupt the government programs, too...since suddenly the entire country would be on them all at once. And that would be extreme judicial activism. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the law, not the consequences of the law. Bankrupting the system should be irrelevant to whether or not parts of the law are legal and whether those parts can be severed. The Supreme Court decides law, it should not decide economic policy. If the Supreme Court was to rule in a fashion that would bankrupt the system, it would be up to Congress, to fix the law. It would be unprecedented (at least from what Ive ever seen) to have a Supreme Court rule that the law is valid, but the economic consequences are so great that the law should be invalidated.

They could take a risk, I think most fans are wondering how this current Bulls team is going to manage to win a title. Last year it was easy to sell Bulls fans on standing pat and making small adjustments. I also think fans feel Deng is somewhat of a risk and arent sure why the Bulls are seemingly not thinking about moving him while its possible.

After watching Ray Allen help the Heat against Boston, I would welcome his addition to Miami. It was sad watching Jesus Shuttleworth fall so far. In the playoffs he shot 30% from three, under 40% total. He didnt even shoot free throws well, around 70%. He was decent during the regular season, I just dont think he has much left in the tank.

Sounds like they are keeping the band together. MLE for one of the PG's you mentioned, probably draft a scoring sf/sg in the first, hope for the best.

The problem is that Butler is not really a great shooter, so in College he scored a lot more getting to the hoop and relying on athleticism. In college he averaged about 6-7 fts per game, he just is unlikely to get that amount in the pros. He can probably be a Ronnie Brewer if he can get better as a defender, but itd be a huge improvement if Butler even comes close to averaging 10 pts per game next year.

Why? That would seemingly make the least sense of any pick the Bulls could possibly make. Id rather have Ezeli than Sullinger. Sullinger reminds me of Boozer, and the last thing the Bulls need is 2 of them.