bmags

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 02:27 PM) There is so much we dont know about George before he assumed control though. What if he was working for another company and just assumed that his brother was going to continue to run the business? It wasnt like it was a planned move, from all accounts people expected Mike to handle it until he went full boob and botched a coach hire. Yeah that's a possibility. I just imagine I'd be really into football.

There seems to be a lot of commentary praising George for committing himself to learning the business the last two years. I have to say I'm disturbed by that. Do you mean to tell me that you are part of the 5 or so families in North America who operate an NFL football franchise and have refused to get actual presidents to run the thing, and in all that time, despite access to learn, you did not bother? What the hell!

I think Cowboys have something this year, I don't think they'll get blown out by any means.

Ugh.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) Bears will hire their new GM's this week, I predict no later than Friday. PS: This is not sourced...just me blabbing about what will happen. It will be Ballard or Gamble. Makes sense, the Kansas City Chiefs have been one of the powerhouses of the AFC for years. If you can nab a GM from there, 2 years removed from leaving a regime in chicago fired for bad drafting, you do it.

If he has a 2014 LHP hitting year, this is just a perfect signing. What a career you can make if you can play that many positions. Also, this guy is only 30, I thought he was 33-34, he's been around forever.

I think soccer officials have have a really tough job, especially with the diving and judgement calls.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jan 3, 2015 -> 11:22 PM) 4? Really good 4. 3's just have more speed to close out at the 3pt line, and also recover on the pump fakes. When he does this vs. 4s they have no chance. For one, he eliminates a 6'8 or taller man from clogging the lane, for 2, they are helpless to defend him that far out. But he wasn't awful, I think Green shot pretty poorly. He was running fantastic PnRs with Noah, except Noah has no ability to finish despite getting fantastic looks.

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ Jan 5, 2015 -> 09:25 AM) And no offense to you, I don't think anyone seriously thinks that Rick Hahn takes advices from Soxtalk. If he did, we would've signed every free agent out there this offseason, and traded for Upton, Kemp, Castro, CarGo and Viciedo would have been long gone by now. I think he saw the disappointment from us in the Denorfia signing and said " I raise you Bonifacio"

So...yeah Mirotic is not a 3

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jan 3, 2015 -> 09:10 PM) I'm not sure how our defense has regressed this badly. Small forward #1 #2 and #3 are out.

Evan Turner is destroying the Bulls. If they don't win a championship I'm quoting this post as to why.

This has been a miserable week of Bulls basketball.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 3, 2015 -> 11:16 AM) Texas has no housing policy. As in they have no zoning laws, at all. Which is much better than the oppo. They do regulate mortgages more.

Josh Smith is the new Rudy Gay, except way way worse.

I don't remember if this was a year thread or in general. In High School, I never took a class on European history, and along those lines, never had any lessons on the French Revolution. Part of this was on purpose, as I thought too much history was taught from a anglo-/franco- lens because I was really into World War I at the time and the lessons there were so ridiculous. Anyway long-story short, I'm not sure where to start book-wise. I was going to read the oxford history of the French Revolution, but then read that was in the "revisionist" camp. I'd probably like to read a marxist historian as this seems crazy to me that it would not be a class struggle so I'd like that background first before moving on. I started reading "The French Revolution a history by Thomas Carlysle" but had to stop. It basically confirmed that the wordy writers of the 19th century were often terrible, but like we assume British people are smarter than us, read the barrage of vocabulary and think it's intellectual. Any recommendations? My first idea is reading "The 12 Who Ruled" but that's a very specific, not longview, history of the revolution. I'd also like one that doesn't end with Napolean.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 07:39 PM) As my wife and I are getting closer to retirement we are making some changes to our investments. One area is we have sold our undeveloped land and are looking at rental properties. This thread has helped a little in my process of putting a plan together. I've slowly developed a strategy for looking at homes. I've divided neighborhoods and/or homes into three opportunities. 1. Buy and improve 2. Buy and maintain 3. Buy and do as little as possible and keep it cheap. Aesthetically and philosophically I can't do #3. That is about as close to slumlord as can be and not my style. I will be part of the "problem" as some people see the process. We are looking at buying three homes in developments that are between 15 and 25 years old. Typically they will need new roofs and major updates to kitchens and baths. My wife also enjoys landscaping. By the time we are finished they will rent at the high end of the market with several amenities included (lawn service and water). That will push out some potential renters. But I am looking for more solid middle class to upper class renters who are more stable and more dependable. Knowing you live in Texas, I have to say good luck. With the lack of density there, the rental market may be very inconsistent. But, to answer your question, I don't think anyone would have a problem with you introducing better housing quality to the neighborhood. If a true market were in place and demand was there, better housing would continue to flood in, and your "quality housing for a higher quality tenant" may be available to lesser tenants in the medium-term. I imagine Texas has pretty good housing policy, just a lack of preference for density. So maybe that is the case there.

QUOTE (Middle Buffalo @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) Not replying specifically to address your parents or their neighbors, but the "white flight" isn't always as simple as racism or prejudice. Plenty of people are motivated by their largest personal investment rapidly being devalued as their neighbors dump their houses and run to the next town. And, this flight happens within racial groups, too. Black people move out of black neighborhoods. Hispanic people move out of Hispanic neighborhoods. The reasons are usually a little more nuanced than race alone as a factor. Gentrification is a cycle tha reoccurs in all large cities. A big factor that leads to it is access to transportation. It's how big cities got big. People with more money wanted bigger houses and more land, so they move out of the city. Roads were built to support that. People with less money try to live close to their jobs. They don't have they money to maintain their houses. Property values drop. Taxes drop. Services drop. People see opportunity to buy fixer uppers. Neighborhood slowly changes for the positive. Rinse. Repeat. It's not only black or Hispanic neighborhoods that undergo gentrification, either. See the neighborhoods right around the Cell for an example. The problem with this is you are really only referring to a specific time period (post-world war II) where the accessibility of the automobile is what created the suburbs, not wealthy suddenly wanted more land. When the wealthy wanted more land prior, they just bought more land in the city, which are the outrageous plots you see sometimes around town. The car allowed people with modest amounts to get space and land for cheap, while still being about as close to work! Of course, by "people" I'm being generous, as a fairly large swath of the population was not allowed to engage in this, and were basically forced to stay "close to their jobs" (as evidenced by "drive to you qualify" not being applicable to "people with less money try to live close to their jobs"). They also did not get the same access to mortgages, and if they wanted access to housing were pushed into predatory deals where the landowner was incentivized to evict often and keep the cash down payment. For those that had the means and access to move into nice areas of the city, they were often met with riots and even getting their houses burned down (we see you bridgeport). Post 1985, we have seen a slow and steady trend to moving back toward urban areas, and the gentrification heating up. From New York City we can see that wealth moving back to the city is absolutely a positive thing. The housing stock improves from slums, and on net, nicer housing becomes MORE affordable. But ultimately within 2 generations, some groups of people were bullied into specific neighborhoods with poor conditions, then some years later pushed out of the same neighborhood to even worse neighborhoods, and basically the answer given is "This is better for you". Basically, I find your evaluation disingenuous because it's basically saying "market forces at work" when really it has only been at work for certain groups, while regulatory and structural forces were at work for others. So when market forces again come to work, you have to at least understand why a group is not trusting and angry, and see if it can be done right this time.

QUOTE (buhbuhburrrrlz @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 11:08 PM) I Laughed out loud.

QUOTE (Jerksticks @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 12:08 PM) For every area that's seeing gentrification and increasing property values & outlandish rent....there's the opposite area, seeing degentrification and values plummeting, crime rolling in, malls folding up etc. It sucks that people have to shuffle around against their will, but all races have to deal with it. Money talks. That's the rule. Somewhat true, it's one of the reasons why a city needs to do all it can to keep population growth. Doesn't have to be a zero sum game. But if there's an area that is attractive, safe and doing well with schooling, city also needs to make sure housing growth is possible.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 12:30 PM) http://411mania.com/wrestling/wwe-news-lat...he-bella-twins/ Video bottom of page Winston and ref got RKO'd Lance Stephenson one was still my fave.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 2, 2015 -> 10:57 AM) You can say that about all of the candidates, really. To the ones that have a lot of hype, none of them have head coaching experience. The ones that have experience, have recently experienced bad seasons. There is no golden boy candidate anymore, that guy is shopping for houses in Ann Arbor This is how I feel. Beside AZ, the past 2 years have not seen a new up and coming franchise. We are still talking about Pats/Seattle/Denver, and are now talking about their 2nd gen coordinators. Unless of course we are talking about AZ, where we would be hiring the coordinator of the coach we turned town 2 years ago. Very pessimistic times. I'm almost ready for Kubiak to be honest. He'd get us back to 9-7 then we can fire him for another terrible coach.

Err, nevermind, DeCosta did decline already.

So, yesterday we heard DeCosta declined Jets interview. I'm guessing it's a matter of time with the Bears before declined. For as much as I want him, he clearly will be a GM in his mind, and likely if he gets that job he'll be a gm for 10-15 years. There's so much to do on the bears he may only get his dream job for 3-5 years. he probably looks at Reggie McKenzie and thinks he made a huge mistake.

My only hope here is the market is not as high as we assume for a player entering free agency. The cost of prospects seems be coming down from its high, but still pretty large. Maybe they are willing to shed without Anderson.