bmags

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) My concern is that it is enough for Bennett to be interested in, but UVA makes a counter that is enough to keep him there and we are left at the altar again. Just like Groce and recruits, Whitman needs to know who he can actually get. Even as tight of a ship as Whitman has been running, any of these leaks can still make us look bad and it's critical right now that we don't have the same dilemma as last time. The coaching bench is so much better right now, and I don't think anyone realized Bennett would even be on that bench. Worst case scenario is so much better than 5 years ago. With the money U of I is offering, I think they get first pick.

QUOTE (gatnom @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) Obviously the usual caveats about internet rumors apply, but this is something that's been floating around: Snelling is a mizzou sbnation writer and he does have a pretty good connection of coaches and agents for rumors. But, even so, I just can't see Bennett leaving UVA.

There is one weird thing being buzzed about with Rivals and Gabe Dearmond - That with Romar's tenuous hold on Washington, Michael Porter Jr. may be back in play. Seems like a pipe dream. One thing different about Mizzou compared to U of I. Our AD made early overtures that they wanted an established power con coach after the Kim Anderson experience. So our top 5 probably did look different. Another thing: - It seems really dumb to let it be known how much you want to spend, because then when you get turned down the next guy on the list knows you were prepared to go higher for the other guy, and it wasn't good enough. Leads to price inflation really quick. Not thrilled about this as a Mizzou fan, but, after Kim Anderson, I mean. Man he was bad.

Sounds like Mizzou is about to land Cuonzo Martin for an eye opening 3.5 per. This means either two things (or both): - The prices of coaches are inflated this hiring season due to a number of schools with money to spend (u of I, mizzou, nc st) - Mizzou way over spent on Martin, a good, solid, not spectacular hire now being paid like the best in the game.

QUOTE (OmarComing25 @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 08:09 PM) I thought the reason it was noteworthy is because batting average can't go above 1 while ERA can. So a .300 batting average is equivalent to a 0.30 ERA, not a 3.00 ERA. Oh, yes, this is correct. We should abolish decimals.

QUOTE (shipps @ Mar 15, 2017 -> 07:47 AM) After what we seen over the last decade on both sides of the ball if it isnt historically bad then its barely notable. To me anyways.

Twitter is so good right now

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 14, 2017 -> 04:37 PM) Yea but last season there was never a 100 percent healthy game. They lost pretty much their entire starting offense halfway through the year Right, except our current starters look a lot more like our backups last year. And so what does an offense look like with a potential lineup of Glennon Langford Wright Meredith Simms yeesh. Though honestly not that much different than if I put our starters in (Howard withstanding)

Also "not historically bad" is a hilarious defense of the offensive talent.

That all assumes that are starters are 100% healthy the whole year.

trying to sit back and imagine how bad this offense will be.

I also just think with their injuries this year, the Rockies are even less likely than the Braves to grab an ace pitcher. on EW podcast they asked their Rockies writer to give a win total and they said 74, before Desmond was even injured. It isn't a go-for-it year anymore.

I think Brewers are going to have a nice jump this year to 75 wins, even in that division. Padres I see being one of those teams that has an abysmal first half and people stop paying attention then have a surprisingly competent second half that takes them out of last place. I still think last place could be a team nobody suspects (like last year) and I'd put it on the marlins.

It's weird to put Kaprellian last in that list. To me Rutherford, Mateo, Kaprellian is a really good package, and I don't see why packages like Tucker/Martes would be so obviously superior.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 14, 2017 -> 09:48 AM) I don't know about the others, but I can't see Drew leaving Vandy after one year. He got a 6 year/$16 million deal and was the 14th highest paid coach when he signed it, and my guess is that they have a big poison pill in that deal at the beginning. Wrong Drew - Scott Drew has been speculated to leave Baylor with all of the disasters happening there.

I hope Tilson keeps his head. Has to be so unbelievably frustrating to get your shot in the majors, get seemingly handed a starting position, and then suddenly be injured on your first game and then can't recover. Sucks as a fan, but I feel for the guy. Now, I would love if Adam Engel found his AFL groove in AAA and we suddenly catch lightning in a bottle from an unlikely source.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ Mar 14, 2017 -> 09:33 AM) Yeah, I think if you were to comp the guys to current players Benintendi comps to Grady Sizemore (pre-injury) and Rutherford is more of a Matt Kemp or Jay Bruce. He's comp'd a lot to David Justice.

This brings up another point, very annoying Mizzou and Illinois are looking for coaches in the same year! And both have new ADs looking to throw around money! Ugh

I feel like the crop of potential coaches this year is so superior to 2010-2012 coaches, whose prime candidates were people like Smart who just didn't seem possible. Of course, some good coaches were grabbed. But I like the midmajor coaches like Dan hurley of Rhode Island and Kevin Keatts.

Yeah a downside to Martin is I don't find his teams' brands of basketball particularly appealing. It's not Frank Martin bad but his teams tempo has decreased last several years.

I think he will raise the floor of any program and right now getting mizzou back to 20+ wins a season is very attractive. I also think that Martin will just be a better coach in the midwest for non-proveable reasons. I think he'll recruit better, and he'll create winning, oft-frustrating but consistently dance contending teams that may pull out a very special year once in a while. I'd like the hire but not as much as I'd like Crean or Marshall. You at least know what you are getting.

You are comparing the CBO against reality. Which, fine. But you should also do that exercise of comparing it to the other models, as the commonwealth article did and found CBO to be most accurate. No, it could not predict a Supreme Court ruling that made it much less likely for medicaid to be picked up by Governors. Would you prefer a US government that uses forecast models or none? Because they are actually pretty good at what they do. There haven't been many health care bills for them to use as inputs to revise their models.

Show me a major corporation that does not have forecasting models to help with decisionmaking, then tell me why the US government should not also have the same for policies that affect millions. Models are never perfect, but they are better than not having anything. The CBO is actually rather conservative, as it does not let you include things like "cost savings from efficiency". The CBO for 40 years has been highly credible, if often frustrating for how conservative it is.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 04:44 PM) Isn't that a huge voting bloc too? So odd that they'd do this to a very "vocal" part of the electorate. It's also a very vulnerable one, most healthcare policy is designed to help people who are naturally going to be unaffordable still get care. And, you know, everybody ages so ...even if you are younger it is pretty shortsighted.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Mar 13, 2017 -> 04:51 PM) You could not wipe your ass with the last CBO report that was not even close on anything when Obamacare came out. Now it's the end all beat all. I take anything from them with caution track record not so good. It was actually the most accurate of all of the Obamacare projections: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publicatio...ll-forecast-aca CBO scoring was also a gigantic part of developing the ACA. Most of the creation of that bill was due to feedback on the CBO score on how to get the cost closer to neutral, including phaseouts of the medicaid funding to states.