Balta1701

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) Four precious minutes of D-Rose playing one-on-one. The fact that my response to this posting is "Yawn" is a pretty solid statement about what the last month has done to his brand.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 01:16 PM) Look at all these people making a difference by changing their profile picture.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) Oh man. He's such a beast in practice. I won't truly believe that until I see him do the towel drill.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 10:25 AM) Zomg! We put it off for a couple of years!!! THE END OF THE EARTH IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The good news is, when you spend money to have people arrange and schedule an event, and then cancel that event, then put it on a year or a couple years down the road, the people who worked on it originally will work on it for free out of the goodness of their hearts. Otherwise, delaying an event would make it cost 110 or 120% as much as just holding it, and thus delaying it in order to meet some arbitrary budget cutting amount in year one would be quite moronic. Just like how when NASA gutted their education and outreach budget last week, they also decided to make sure that none of the kids they would have reached with those activities got any older.

He's going left in that gif.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) Well, I still had more confidence in him as a backup than um... who is the Bears backup now? On the roster? Josh McCown.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 10:20 AM) What I don't understand about Rose is that by all reports, he is scrimmaging and dominating in practice. I know real games are an entirely different thing, but if he doesn't trust his knee enough to try it in real games, how is it he is apparently trusting it enough to practice? I do think Steve is correct when he says Rose doesn't want to come back until he is ready to dominate. I just wonder how he's going to come to that conclusion if he hasn't yet. It's not like he's going to be able to get anything closer to real game situations in the summer than the current practices. Every report I read seems to say he still feels weird going to his right. He might feel ok scrimmaging but he's probably hesistant to take a hit/get knocked to the floor when he's going that direction.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 09:47 AM) To be fair, this is a business. Each player has to look out for himself first and foremost. Derrick Rose is an incredibly powerful brand, and if he comes back and looks like s*** (I'm not going to bring up re-injury, doctors with degrees have stated he has no more risk than anyone else) then that hurts his brand. He wants to come back at that top level. It's what we love about him, so it's hard to turn on him even though it's frustrating as hell. And yes, my opinion on this changes daily, because I've got so much emotion invested in Derrick Rose. It's ridiculous. Of course, the alternative is...with "The Return" videos, the way they built up him coming back from this injury, they got fans like me who were willing and ready to be invested in his personal brand even more invested in the brand, and failing to play this year will, at least for me, devastate that good will and interest. Basically it's the same reason I owe Steve a punch in the face now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2013 -> 09:19 AM) Any risk of hampering the rehab process by shutting him down for the year? My understanding is that the next phase is "play in games." Will 6+ months of missed time mean he's that much further from his (new) 100% next season? Presumably since at this point it's all about how he feels, he's going to get more used to how he feels with more time. The alternative of course could be that he has a mental block he can't overcome now and the 6 months will just make that worse. Either way, yawn.

Today we sequestered a conference planning the future of Mars exploration. Sigh.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 05:51 PM) Going back to pre-PED abuse era. Most players will need to choose between contact and power. Could you make a case for Canseco being one of the most influential figures in MLB history? He really changed the game for a couple of decades. Vast rule changes were made because of him. Maybe moreso if he's really the one who started shooting needles into Big Mac's tuchus.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 06:26 PM) Not trump, but the biological father has to have rights. Its his child. Unless we are going to say that biological fathers have no obligations. It cant be both ways, the biological father either has rights and obligations, or the biological father has no rights and no obligations. Reverse the scenario. If 10 years after a child is born, the mother then wants child support, she would be entitled to it right? So why cant the father 10 years later say he wants to be part of his child's life? The correct answer to this IMO is that there shouldn't be an answer. That should be up to the judge to determine, based on the child's living conditions, the reason for the decade long separation, the condition of both of the parents, and so forth. I could come up with scenarios on both sides, where the judge should say "No" and where the judge should say "yes".

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) The law is always evolving. Its like science. Just because yesterday we thought that the Earth was the center of the universe, doesnt mean we always have to think that until the end of time. While the preference is stare decisis, that is just preference. This statement is exactly the opposite of what you agreed with when Jenks stated "I get what Kennedy is saying, but that "maybe it's not the right time" crap is exactly why people hate activist judges. Timing shouldn't matter in these decisions." You said "Yep" to that post, agreeing that time shouldn't matter, and here just made a (Correct, IMO) case for why timing matters.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 03:18 PM) See, this is the common misconception of what SCOTUS does. They don't decide "is gay marriage acceptable." That's what you all want them to decide, but they don't. Their job is to look at a particular law, in a particular context, and decide if it's constitutional. We just revisited the whole affirmative action decision and in the Michigan law school case O'Connor says i'm deciding this is constitutional right now, but hopefully in 25 years it won't be. It was entirely dependent on the context. Gov't providing minority contracts at some point will become unconstitutional even though they're constitutional right now. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. That's exactly why I disagreed...because his original statement was either that the law was constitutional or it wasn't. You've just explained how a law can be constitutional at one time and, because the judgment of society changes, unconstitutional another time. That is exactly why I fundamentally disagreed with his and Jenks's statement that the law is clear-cut always either constitutional or unconstitutional.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) Constitutionality of a particular law really shouldn't be a "maybe" situation. Either prop 8 is constitutional or it's not. Whether or not it's too soon to tell isn't really a good excuse to not decide. If the only defense here is that studies might show kids grow up worse with gay parents, but the science is inconclusive or not fully developed, the law should be upheld. There's no reason not to at this particular time. If in 10 years the science changes and you want to use that defense, bring another lawsuit. So wait...either it's constitutional or it's not...laws and interpretations are immutable...but if we're wrong we can fix that in 10 years by reinterpreting things.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:55 PM) Yep, its either wrong or its right. Fundamentally disagree, just so that is said.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:33 PM) In retrospect it might have been smarter to take that money and try again next year. Is there a multi-year penalty for offering a guy a QO 2 years in a row? (Like there is with the franchise tag in football?)

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:32 PM) That's just it though. They are getting no compensation for the use of the Wrigley name. I'm sure the Wrigley Co. thinks its great. But how much money could they get some company to give them just for the chance to put their name on the outside of their new stadium? The Cubs's stadium would be one of the most valuable properties in baseball. US Cellular spends >$3 million a year on the White Sox naming rights. For the Cubs, $5 million a year would not be unreasonable. The naming right alone could be worth $150 million over the lifetime of a stadium.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:23 PM) If they built a new stadium, would they still call it Wrigley Field? Wrigley II? I'd imagine there's no way on this green earth they're giving up naming rights for free.

QUOTE (lasttriptotulsa @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:11 PM) I wouldn't worry about it to much. If Flowers is DH and needs to sub in as catcher, you just lose your DH for that game. A pitcher taking a couple of at bats aint the end of the world. It's more of a fun question than it is a big worry. I think we all know that Wise is the last guy out of the bullpen, so that fun question is done.

Who was it last year?

QUOTE (oldsox @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 08:23 AM) Great article, Flavum. Thanks. I'm surprised there wasn't more conversation here on Lohse. Never saw any evidence that Sox were interested, so I guess they were not. And speaking of lost number 1 picks, I still wish we had not given up a #1 for Dunn. That unknown player would have had 2 seasons of pro ball by now..... We're literally overloaded on middle of the rotation to bottom of the rotation pitchers, and we spent FA money on a better starter.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Mar 26, 2013 -> 02:37 AM) If you are right, this is one blah season ahead of us as fans. fathom always predicts a blah season.

I'm suddenly overwhelmed with confidence and I'm not sure why...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 25, 2013 -> 06:00 PM) It's starting to look that way. And then the Bulls will have an even more thin, less competitive roster, and the Heat will be working on their 3rd ring. Yawn.