Balta1701

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 05:02 PM) So why did GarPax tell us this was a championship roster? And if they have no shot at winning...why aren't they rebuilding? 1. At what point did you know that Derrick Rose wasn't going to be Derrick Rose any more? If he was still Derrick Rose, with the way Gasol is playing, Butler turning into a top 20 player, and a strong lineup around them, this would be a championship roster. 2. What can you do to rebuild when you're holding one of the worst contracts in the league, top 10 money for a player who can't get there? 3. Unfortunately we found a top 20 player late in the draft and that also made any "Rebuilding" effort extremely difficult because right there, even without Derrick Rose, the Bulls were going to have to rely on the guys they could find later in the draft. The only thing that is a legit mistake is the thing the Bulls couldn't do - Trade away Rose after that first Bulls/Heat series. If they'd done that, then youv'e got a legit rebuilding path. If you didn't do that, then you don't have cap space, you are continuing to try to put a lineup on the court that can compete around Rose if he comes back healthy, and you're consequently not getting high draft picks.

QUOTE (ozzfest @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) 1. Derrick Rose is healthy (enough) this year 2. The team is not even close to being a contender. 3. The FO said that this roster was a championship roster with Thibs standing in the way. 4. So what gives? Derrick Rose is no where near the player he was pre-injury nor is he the player he's being paid to be. He currently has the 9th highest salary in the NBA. Is he a top 10 player right now?

This Broncos D has been everything they're supposed to be so far.

Trying to tell if this is a bad day or a good day for Microsoft. First time the country probably knows "These are surfaces not iPads". But because terrible.

I think a short summation of my view of this thread is 1. It's entirely possible the Bulls FO has made some mistakes. They've had some clear major hits and some solid misses. However... 2. Given what happened to the MVP they drafted, I submit that there are zero GM/coach/management combos who could have turned this team into a championship team in the last 5 years. Make every decision correct...and that injury ravaged player still prevents them from being a title team.

QUOTE (scs787 @ Jan 24, 2016 -> 01:46 AM) I admittedly was at a bar and want paying attention to the game, and also haven't watched in a few weeks. I saw one Taj jump shot, and have to ask, is he finally back to shooting more 10-15 footers? There was a time where he had that shot on point and then seemed to abandon it and become a black hole in the paint. Also when the hell is Dunleavy coming back? Dunleavy's had several setbacks/flareups in his back. Supposedly did some non-contact practices this week. Barring further setbacks, at this pace, maybe right around the AS Break?

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 05:41 PM) The discussion is frequently made that the earth goes through normal heating and cooling cycles. Some will still insist that there isn't a problem because it can occur naturally. I'm not saying I agree but much of the arguing revolves around is there truly a problem, regardless of the data. There is an unusual amount of blood pouring out of this person's leg. Obviously that's just a natural cycle and we shouldn't ask why it's happening.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 05:46 PM) I don't think it's too much of a stretch to expect Trey to be the 3B, Anderson the SS and one of Sanchez or Saladino to be the 2B come 2018. No one we've traded the past two season besides Semien would have been of any use in the infield. Micah perhaps, but his D will never be good enough to be an MLB regular. And if you're expecting Trey, a guy who has put up a .720 OPS in his minor league career so far, to be coming up in 2 years and making a major contribution as a big league starter at a young age 23...you've got a major lineup hole. At which point, you're going to have to find some additional help to make up for that weakness. So you're going to have to make another trade and strengthen elsewhere. The only guy out of that list that I'd say has some ability to be an offensive contributor by 2018 is Anderson...but he's also raw enough that I don't know how much time he'll need to adapt to the bigs. Leaving us with the same setup as right now - treading water. Always having some serious lineup and roster weaknesses, always low on depth, and not able to compete with franchises that build more complete rosters, unless "Everything goes right".

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 05:24 PM) This is where we disagree. I don't think there is a commitment to go for it for two years. I know I'm mostly alone in this but just because they've traded for a player that has 2 years on his deal doesn't mean that is the end of it. Sale and Abreu are under contract for 4. The sox have control of rodon for 5. It doesn't have to end at 2. If the deal makes sense, do it but if it limits the team too much, don't. The problem remains; with as little high level talent in the system as the White Sox have, in no small part because of the trades the last 2 offseasons, the White Sox will struggle to tread water when those guys leave in 2 years. They will have to either take a substantial step back in 2018 at those spots by playing rookies there that were pushed aggressively to the big leagues, or they will have to trade the little bits they are able to develop for veterans to continue treading water. And that sets them up with the same problem as last year and this year - a weak roster, not well stocked enough to compete unless "Everything" goes right, and not enough resources to hang with the well-built teams. That's the road to Sale and Abreu then leaving.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 04:39 PM) The mets offer was not significantly better. Im not really goog at math but 100 is more than 75. At the end of the mets dwal he will be 33. It is not known how he will be doinb in his mid-30s. Once you have the guaranteed money its there. He went back to the mets because he wanted to all along. It has the benefit of possibly being good if he performs well. If you do a few fractions, 75/3 > 120/5. He's also betting on himself. It's entirely possible that the deal he signed will make him $50 million more in the next 5 years than he would have made on a 6 figure deal from the Nats. Another MVP level season next year plus that 1 year opt out plus no other big name OFs on the market and there's a potentially huge deal there.

QUOTE (soxfan2014 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 04:06 PM) I know the CBA expires at the end of this year but wouldn't the old rules still apply through next offseason? I feel like any agreement dealing with free agent compensation would go into effect after the 7 season. I'd say it's almost certain that the same rules will apply next offseason and that any overhaul will be in 2018. The agreement expires at the end of November so those decisions will already have happened before the new CBA starts.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 23, 2016 -> 04:02 PM) I'd prefer Desmond and Jackson. Desmond is still good defensively and 2 years ago was good enough to turn down $100 million. He was probably the best SS in the NL behind Tulo. If he gives you power and defense at SS in the short-term, the White Sox would have a mighty thunderous infield. Then they could let him walk next year or the year after and get a pick back for him leaving. To point out again - the CBA is up again this offseason, and each of the last several times the CBA has been up they've made draft pick compensation harder to get. I think there's every reason to expect that again this year. For a $100 million player, someone like Upton, teams still don't care about the draft pick. But for a guy like Desmond - if he's getting in the $15 million/year for a couple years range - the value of a late first round draft pick is something like $15-$20 million on average, so the value of the draft pick is comparable to what they're getting. Those are the guys that really shouldn't be causing a team to lose a draft pick and that's where they will probably weaken it this year.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) This does feel sooo much like Lebron. That wasn't hats on the table, that was surrounded by adoring, caring children who would get no money.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 22, 2016 -> 02:13 PM) I dunno. Hitting in the 20s doesn't make up for missing earlier... doug mcdermott rings a bell. Doesn't it really though? If you drafted 5 players in the teens would you expect to get as much production as the Bulls are getting out of just Jimmy Butler?

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:31 PM) Idk about that if we only going 3 years. Read your actual question. You asked an "either or" question. I replied with "yes". Basically, until he's actually signed, it's all rumors, speculation, people gaming the market through the media, etc.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:23 PM) My god, I'm sorry I gave LaRoche too much credit, he had a .634 OPS. So you are saying that the Pedro Alvarez backslide at age 29 to a .720 OPS is still worse than Adam LaRoche at age 37 after he looked like a weak, broken man? It is not a question who I'd prefer more at DH, though certainly I understand nobody wants 12 million on the bench and another 6-8 million to play the limited role you paid the former for. Given the "no one under contract" choice, yeah I'd go with Alvarez too, but it's at least a more narrow choice. If we play the same game that people are ok with playing for Melky and ignore a good chunk of the season, LaRoche's OPS in the middle of June was still .750. He at least had 2.5 months of that in him last year, so if he's a "weak, broken man" it was something that happened to him after mid-June. The real trick is the "unfortunately one of them is already under contract" part and that's not going to change.

QUOTE (peavy44 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:21 PM) Are the white sox in this still or mets vs NATS. Yes.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:15 PM) OTC is not the same as unregulated. It means not cleared. Key difference. Those swaps were lightly regulated, and not cleared. The definition of shadow banking is by nature full of shades of grey, but it seems to me that a business with trillions of dollars in motion via legally binding contracts between registered financial institutions doesn't qualify. By the way, I am not saying there isn't a problem with banking activities in unregulated or marginally regulated spaces. It is an issue. However I don't consider the problem of uncleared OTC swaps as part of that. The "not cleared" part is the point - that's what kept them "marginally regulated" as you say it here. That's what is being lumped in together as "Shadow banking" - it's avoiding the regulation of traditional banks through avoiding the "clearing" process as you define it here. You're making a language distinction when the distinction is really unimportant - "Shadow banking" is being used as the catch all since, as you say, it is "full of shades of grey". The reason why there's a "Shadow" is that it is "lightly regulated" through the fact that it's not being exposed to the regular market regulation that would fit that kind of transaction if the institution were a normally regulated bank/insurer.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 06:09 PM) As a DH he is much better than LaRoche. LaRoche had a .687 OPS last year, Alvarez had a .780. He had double the home runs. I would have much rather taken Alvarez as a DH than LaRoche (granted laroche could spell abreu at first better). Here's the problem with that logic. 1. LaRoche in 2014 was MUCH better than Alvarez. Alvarez got hurt and put up about a .720 OPS and didn't play the last 2 months. LaRoche was vastly better than that. 2. Yes, LaRoche is older and so perhaps counting on him to recover is unlikely, but it's equally possible that Alvarez could backslide once again. So you've got a win for Alvarez on offense, but it's at best a narrow win. 3. Defense, like you mention, easily goes to LaRoche. If you didn't have LaRoche under contract already, perhaps you offer Alvarez a few million and see what he can do to fill the role, but with one wild card LH hitting DH already under contract, it seems a little odd to spend extra money on another one.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2016 -> 03:13 PM) I've read quite a bit on Shadow Banking, and I fundamentally disagree that it was the major reason for the 2008 meltdown. The single biggest killer was the toxic unwind from OTC swaps, though other big players included the mortgage banking debacle and the problems of private and customer banking being intertwined. Shadow banking was much further down the list, in my view. Yes I know this is a nobel guy we're talking about, and no I'm not saying I am smarter than he is. I am saying he is far too narrowly focused to see the broader picture, in my opinion. I read this and was extremely confused because as far as everything I have ever seen "OTC Swaps" you're referring to "ARE" part of the shadow banking system. I can even take this from the Wikipedia entry on "Shadow banking system" That's basically the given definition of "Shadow banking" - performing the services of a traditional financial institution, like selling insurance, but doing so in a way that is outside the traditional regulatory stream. Every definition of an OTC swap or OTC transaction for that matter that contributed to the 2008 collapse basically fits that definition - it's a transaction conducted outside the traditional regulatory stream by keeping it "over the counter". Here's the Economist using the language interchangeably.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 08:50 AM) Of course it is. But Krugman turned it into a straw man argument - no one is saying it fixes everything. And he justifies it by pointing to a factor that's maybe not in the top 3 causes of the meltdown, because it's the highest on the list that wouldn't be at least partially addressed by Glass Steagel. Actually, his point is that is exactly what Sanders is saying. That when you push Sanders on policy questions, he falls back on that position.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 21, 2016 -> 05:13 PM) The legendary Planet X, now being called Planet 9, might have been mathematically found. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/fea...en-solar-system Even though no one cares...the authors of that paper are a former student of mine and a former professor of mine. And still I can't find a ****ng job.

The Nobelist makes a point:

It's interesting how people can see the "Kobe had the right to veto any trade and wouldn't accept any trade where the Bulls gave up enough for the Lakers to let him go" so many times and then continue to type "They had a shot at Kobe and declined". If you want to rip them, I could get that. If you want a convincing case, stop repeating things that are incorrect and have already been pointed out to be incorrect. I still haven't seen a response to the Butler thing, but fine, I'll even ignore that. How you're going to find "alternatives" to an MVP I don't know, but I'll even ignore that. Just stop repeating the Kobe thing until you can tell how it would work given that Kobe would veto the deal if the Bulls gave up the Lakers price.

I was going to be so pissed if we didn't beat the Illini tonight. Can we win this by exactly 35? Would mean surprisingly a lot to me today. (Non gambling reason).