Soxbadger

Shumpert is seemingly a reach at this pick, but this draft is a lot of gambling. What I know is that Wisconsin was the first team to offer him and Bo Ryan really wanted him (great defense, high quality player etc). So could be a good fit for the knicks because Melo/Amare will take most of the shots.

I agree, Im just saying that when you look back at most drafts there arent many superstars in the same class. More than anything there is just not as much hype because you dont have High School players. Now NBA teams draft foreign players like High Schoolers, they dont see them play so they assume they must be good. I think this draft outside of Williams/Irving doesnt have clear cut stars, but it has a lot of depth and interesting guys.

Basically every draft is mostly role players. There are something like 200 NCAA teams, so about 1000 players start. In the NBA there are 150 starters, its pretty damn hard to break in.

Irving is more likely to take your team deep in the playoffs than Derrick Williams. Irving is electric on the ball and makes smart decisions, and has the upside to be one of the elite PG's in the game. I think the 4 is more questionable, but clearly Cleveland wanted a guy that was going to play this year.

Obviously everyone is entitled to their opinion, I think Williams could be a good player, I just think that Irving is a better player. And if Irving is at 2, Minnesota deals that pick and some one takes him. The reason Minnesota cant move the #2 is that there isnt as much interest in Williams (at least imo).

I think im a bigger fan of Knight than most, but I really believe Irving is the guy who is most likely to become an All-Star in the draft. After him Id say Williams, and after that it becomes pretty hit or miss. My philosophy would be that you take the best player, and go from there. What if they take Williams, Knight goes 3, now youve got Williams and the choice of Kanter/Walker? I think there is a pretty good chance that you can get irving and Kanter, which could net you the 2 best players. So Id rather take the sure thing and see what happens with 4.

Prior to his injury Kyrie was well on his way to being the easy #1. 17 pts ppg, 90% ft, 52% fg and 46% from 3. Williams on the other hand just massively concerns me. The guy shot 25% from 3 as a frosh and then shoots 57% as a soph? Granted he only shot 16 in his first year, but I just think there are more questions than Irving. Cleveland isnt going to be good before Baron Davis is gone. I dont even enter him in the equation. In my opinion Irving is the best player in the draft, and you take him with the first pick. Itd be one thing if they had Rose or CPIII, but Baron Davis isnt blocking Irving.

No way can you take that risk. The best player in the draft is Irving. After Irving you have different concerns about the next 3 guys, Williams (what position), Kanter (never played NCAA, general question marks), Knight/Walker. If Im the Cavs, I absolutely take Irving and then I see what happens. Derrick Williams was good, but as Ive said before, he also got really hot at the right time. Im not sure that he can shoot as well as he did in the tournament over the course of a season and the NBA three line is going to test his outside game.

I never even read the thread about Rongey and Pierre, and I dont think Im using return on investment the same way. The way Im using it (to steal from Simmons dollar/coin which is simplistic but works for this) is that last year the Bulls valued Noah as a $1, he then was injured didnt perform well, and we immediately want to get .$.50 for him? That just doesnt make sense. (Edit) I assume that the Rongey/Pierre thread was about how the Sox paid Pierre so they need to get a return on that money. The problem with that argument is that you can get a better return by playing another player, so therefore you actually get a better return on your investment by JP sitting on the bench, then by JP playing.

Wouldnt trade Noah for Melo, Bosh, etc, but now will trade for Ellis. That seems to be inconsistent. Now maybe if the Lakers are moving Gasol for the 2 and giving that to the Bulls as well, then the Bulls could draft kanter and have what would be referred as the Turkish Towers, plus getting Ellis. I just dont think Ellis for Noah is a great return on investment.

Id love to get Jon Leuer, I doubt it happens but he could be a solid role player for someone.

At the end of the day civilization is nothing more than imaginary lines in the sand created by humans. Why the state? Because that is how the US drew its imaginary lines. We have a bicameral system and therefore the lines are state and federal. A state can allow local govt more flexibility and there is nothing to say you couldnt have a system where counties or municipalities had more power, it just isnt our system. I could argue why, but the why isnt that important because Im just playing by the rules of the system..

I used to lean more against the states, but one day I realized I just dont care what someone in another state does. There are some exceptions on fundamental rights, but as soon as its a gray area, you might as well just defer to the state. If Wisconsin wants to allow guns in preschools, its their stupidity and theyll suffer. I dont have enough time to try and save other people from what I believe to be silly positions.

I dont agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the statute, but for right now its the way it is, so I framed my argument as states rights, because arent we all tired of the Federal Govt in Washington telling states what to do?

What I dont understand is why the state of Illinois is not allowed to interpret its own constitution. This seems like a states rights issue to me. The US Bill of Rights clearly states that: The Illinois Constitution states: If you give meaning to every word, it clearly uses the term "regulated." (I wont even get into the argument that this should only apply to those in the militia because currently the Supreme Court does not agree). The reason it says regulated, is that no one has a right to bear any arm. You cant buy a tank, you cant buy a nuclear weapon, and most reasonable people agree that there should be some limitation to what arms regular citizens can own. Thus if you can regulate the type of arm, why cant you regulate when and where it can be carried? To me the answer is you can, and under the current interpretations the only thing you would not be allowed to do was regulate gun ownership so much that it made it impossible to own a gun. (Think Marijuana stamp act, where in order to get the stamps you had to have the marijuana which was illegal, thus you committed a crime.) Furthermore you have to give weight to the Illinois Constitution and the Illinois Courts right to interpret their own laws. The Illinois Constitution clearly states that the right to bear arms is subject to police power. That means that the IL govt can restrict gun ownership/usage. In order to win this battle, the US Supreme Court would have to find that the IL Constitution was 1) unconstitutional or 2) that regulating guns is not within police powers. I personally think its a non-issue, Illinois has the right to regulate guns, if the people disagree, we can amend the constitution. But I really dont see that happening, and I really dont see why Federal Judges should be the ones who determine how our state interprets our constitution.

So Adu comes out of nowhere and plays a significant role in the US victory. What shocked me the most is he took the corner kick, its just not something youd expect from a guy who hasnt played in a national game for something like 3 years. That being said, Adu's skill on the ball is undeniable. When I watch him play, I just cant understand how the US doesnt have room for him. I really dislike Bradley as a coach and wish the US would try something else.

Its impossible to tell what happened with Peavy and AJ. It seemingly came out of nowhere but ended in anger.

How can anyone blame Peavy or AJ at this point? I dont think anyone has an idea of what happened. And JP earning his spot in the line up, no one runs harder on a pop up.

I dont care if Sale was the only guy up, Ozzie could have used him after Soriano singled. hell you could tell Peavy was struggling a bit at the end of the 5th.

You never fail if you never try. Its odd you mention Rios, Dunn and Peavy as busts for KW. Rios was free, meaning that outside of spending money, his production will always be greater than 0, which is what we gave up. Dunn was a FA, gave up a pick, and even as someone who hates that type of player, I thought the signing made sense. Worst case scenario you thought dunn hits 240 with 30 hrs, which is still a massive upgrade. Peavy, outside of money none of the talent the Sox gave up really has burned in this deal. Furthermore, he got Peavy a former Cy Young winner. If your going to b**** about KW Im not sure those are the 3 examples Id use. Any team that spends money, has their fair share of monetary busts. Its just the nature of the business.

Ozzie just loves playing with fire.

In my opinion its pretty clear you keep KW and get rid of Ozzie. You can say KW should be clairvoyant and know that Dunn would fail, you can say that Rios was risky and that the Jackson trade didnt pay off, but in each of those moves, Kenny was trying to improve the team. If you are going to have a GM who gambles, you better be prepared for some busts. But I like that he takes risks, I like that he convinces JR to spend money. Id rather a GM go big and bring excitement, than a guy who just plays it safe and settles.

I dont see why thats a big problem for the NFL players, they are already in the league and you would think theyd want to screw the rookies so they get bigger salaries. Self interest for all!

If NC plays any different because of what a former AD of Wisconsin said, shame on them. Id expect that theyd want to blow the doors off Wisconsin regardless. Wisconsin is most likely middle of the pack Big 10, so its not really a great match up anyways.

Can the Sox win another game in spite of Ozzie. He has to have the guts to pinch hit for Dunn there, even a random fan had a better shot.