Balta1701

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:39 PM) How can you argue this? All season we needed a legit 2 guard to take some of the pressure off Rose. This post you have just typed is maddening. What's wrong with having a second guy who can draw fouls and score at will? Anytime Wade has the ball, there's someone on the team who is better. Gosh, the Heat must be f***ed. The thing that's wrong with it is that if the guy defends like a shorter version of Kyle Korver, it might darn well make thing worse. Especially if he demands more minutes. I'm just going back to that Heat series, remembering how Wade went for 10 ppg because of Bogans and Brewer, and thinking that "if the Bulls scored 8 more points a game but Wade scored 15 more points a game"...it wouldn't work out well for the Bulls. That's my catch-22. Of course, I haven't yet thought about "How would we get him without giving up anyone in the top 6 of the rotation".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:42 PM) You don't think there are more qualified people looking for work today than a decade ago? Then it should be easier to find people willing to work in Connecticut, not harder.

I did not enjoy reading this.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:34 PM) Martin doesn't require an entire team to set elaborate screens to get open. Martin creates. Martin draws fouls. There's no statistic you can point to to lessen the gap between Korver and Martin. But...any time he's doing those things, he's taking the ball out of the hands of a guy who does them better.

Multiple choice question. This picture is: a.) The spaceship which landed in Soldier Field a decade ago b.) Apple's new proposed Cupertino headquarters building c.) The shape-shifting, energy absorbing creature from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Encounter at Farpoint"?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:27 PM) I generally am pretty forgiving with players, but something is really wrong with Pierre's defense. Hes getting bad reads on a lot of hits, and many times going towards the wall he just jumps in the air, not even making a play on the ball. That has nothing to do with speed, so its strange. and it's the complete opposite of what he did last year too.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:10 PM) Meh. Instant offense is huge. If Korver had hit the shots he put up, we'd have been fine. Kevin Martin is a perfect fit for this roster. Dear Lord, the space he'd clear for D-Rose would be legendary. Korver is supposed to be that kind of instant offense. He shot 42% from 3 this year, Martin shot 38%. Martin had a TSP of 0.6, Korver 0.57 (although Korver in 2009 was 0.62).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 01:04 PM) Remember that 9-10% unemployment thing... How does that impact things? NYC is still Wall Street's home, and Wall Street has, um, weathered the storm fairly nicely...(sure, with a small bit of government help, but we don't pay attention to that)

Mark!

Sox will insist on a rehab start for Peavy.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 12:50 PM) And I am hard pressed to think that in just one year his defense has completely regressed from being an above average LFer (which he was last year defensively) to utter crap defensively. In fact, while it might not have been a great play yesterday, I didn't have any problem with it and by and large his arm is what sucks about his defense. His range has been fine most of the year (sans his early hiccups). Has he been good in LF, no, he's been below average this season as a whole. This is where I've got to disagree with you Jas. You may be hard pressed to believe that in one year Juan Pierre's defense has completely fallen off the table, but it has. He had a couple week stretch where he didn't cost us a game in May, but even when that was going on there were several misplayed/adventures out there where he barely recovered on balls that last year's Pierre would have gotten to easily. 2010 Pierre would have made last night's catch while pulling up at the end, with room to spare. He's playing like 2006 Podsednik out there. He is getting poor jumps, taking bad routes to balls, and when he's close to a difficult catch it bounces off his glove.

Read a great story about a bank, might have been UBS or someone like them, moving their main offices out of NYC a decade ago to somewhere in Connecticut, a few hours away, to avoid NYC City Taxes. This week, they decided to give up and move back to NYC. They couldn't recruit people to work there because people actually find benefits to living in and working in those type of cities. Anyway...if the quality of route 20 when I was driving on it last month is any guide, they'll take a drive to Indiana, come home with a concussion, and realize "F*** this" we're staying in the city. H. Christ.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) Juan Pierre was playing deep to prevent doubles and was playing there as the coaches directed. He tried to make the catch and just missed it. It's the breaks of the game. It is just too bad that these bad breaks always seem to come back and haunt us. I just don't see the reason for this conversation other than we always look for the scapegoat. Problem is...if Juan Pierre is going to be starting everyday, he needs to be able to get to that ball. The fact that he was able to get to those balls last year offset some of his lack of productivity on offense. If he can't get to that ball, then he's giving below average production on both offense and defense.

Hmmm, this might actually have some hope of passing. White House considering offering a business-side payroll tax credit (your employer would see the money, you wouldn't) in exchange for a vote on the debt ceiling. Would provide some weak but nonzero stimulus and get the debt ceiling vote done.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) Who cares how much the contract is for? If it were for $50 I'd be angry because he'd still play, costing us games and impeding other more talented players from taking his spot. He is actually still an adequate 4th OF right now in my eyes. For a generic team with a generic manager, $1-2 million for a 4th OF who can step in and start and give you pinch running off the bench isn't a bad deal.

Some talk about playing no doubles, I understood the phrase "nothing you can do about it".

Pretty much stuck in crap territory.

I read this as a Washington Post op-ed a week or so ago and thought it was good but harder than I can make myself go as a standard issue science-guy. But man, add in the video with narration and it goes to a whole 'nother level.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 09:46 AM) I believe that is only in the manufacturing and agribusiness areas. At least in Indiana, those were the "Vocational" industries in high school.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 09:45 AM) I can only offer my opinion as to why. Standardized state mandated testing in core subjects shrinks the available electives. Many of the manufacturing related vocational programs were paths to jobs that no longer exist in the US, so why bother. The people making the decisions are all college educated. The facilities are too expensive to maintain. The programs have inherit physical risks that are absent from desks and books so insurance rates are higher. Society pressure, especially in the STEM area. At this point I'm hoping you can see why I'm asking this question between you and 2k5...because the cause of this decline leads itself to very different solutions. If its mandatory testing that is the problem, throwing money at the program makes no difference. If its expensive facilities, changing the testing requirements makes no difference. If its the insurance rates, then the programs are SOL and need to be done in college. If the jobs aren't there connected with them, then adding more money or having better tests don't do anything.

DUI for Mark Grace.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 09:42 AM) I can guess loss of jobs/careers in most of those fields, but it is only a pseudo-educated guess. In that case, advocating for a vocational program is advocating for people to be trained for jobs that don't exist, which would be a "Fail" if that were the true reason.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 09:38 AM) I can tell you I know this to be true in Indiana purely from a numbers standpoint. There are a large number less kids in the Voc programs than there used to be. Can you give a reason why?

Barkely's just like a random internet message board poster.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 09:02 AM) Another difference between US schools and other countries is we make an assumption that every kid should go to college. We push them into college prep programs, dress them in college t-shirts, and extol the virtues of a college education. Possibly rightfully, we have eliminated most vocational programs from our schools. Those kids who would be successful and interested in those paths are instead forced like a square peg in a round hole to be taking advanced math and English classes so they can go to college. Other countries continue the child's education, but on a different path. So Tex...I'm not convinced that your statement is true...but if it is true that the U.S. has backed off on vocational programs, why has it happened?