southsider2k5

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) One other thing to point out, since this is an offday, is that the new CBA talk is indicating the NBA wants a hard cap at $45M with a 3 year exclusion period (to allow teams to get there cap situations in order) and it sounds like portions of NBA contracts would not be guaranteed. That is a pretty drastic reduction in overall player/salary expenses given that right now there are numerous teams with upwards of 80 to 90M in player payroll (Lakers @ 94M). The luxury tax would also go away. Now that is obviously not a settled upon reality but holy crap, this is gonna be one tough labor negotiation. Makes the NFL problems look small (well, NFL really doesn't have problems other than figuring out who gets to make more money since everyone is pretty much raking in profits). NBA, on the other hand, has tons of franchises losing money. Wow, there will be a strike before that happens.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:41 PM) 1. A drop in demand = too much supply. Same exact problem. More oil was being supplied than there was demand for, and prices plummeted. 2. Ok, I understand completely where your flaw is right now. You're somehow under the impression that production prices for oil are similar to the per barrel cost. This is fundamentally untrue. There is little to no oil anywhere that is produced and shipped for $100/barrel. This is not a commodity where the high price is reflecting increased cost of production, it is reflecting only the scarcity of the item. Furthermore, virtually all of the production subsidies we offer are on oil that is produced at well less than $100/barrel cost, meaning that it is all oil that would be produced anyway without the subsidies. We're not subsidizing companies to produce extremely hard to get oil here, we're subsidizing them to produce oil that would be very profitable for them to produce anyway. -It isn't the exact same problem. It is two fundamentally different things. You fail econ 101 if you don't understand the difference between those two things in the state of Indiana. That is a state standard that you have to know to pass the class. -Price point doesn't matter. Again, cost structure doesn't care where the costs come from, or at what price point they come in at. If you change costs, you change final price, and you change production. None of the political party lines matter here. This introduction to high school economics we are talking about here. These aren't rules which are negotiable based on your party.

Uh-huh

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:36 PM) Would it be enough in a straight up trade, no. But if Howard is demanding an early exedus it wouldn't be a bad deal. Orlando gets a C and PF to fill 2 holes for a long time. And aren't taking on any horrific or untouchable deals. Noah's deal is expensive but reasonable for a center and Taj is still on his rookie contract. Laker fans are talking about trading Gasol straight up for him or Bynum. I'd say that the deal the Bulls are offering isnt' that bad and if Howard puts a gun to there head, well, that could put a lot of pressure on them. Throw in a 1st or something to sweeten the deal and they might bight. Of course they will probably try to include Arenas in any deal that involves Howard. IMO, Laker fans are morons if they think that is all it will take to get the job done, even though Bynum or Gasol are way better than any player the Bulls could send to Orlando (obviously you keep Rose).

SOOOOOOOOOOO BIG!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) The one thing that 2k5 is assuming with that entire statement of course is that the oil industry behaves as a monopoly which can set its own prices. If however, there is competition between providers, then everything 2k5 is saying is wrong. Basic supply and demand tells you why. There is a fixed supply of oil coming out of the ground. The amount of supply changes slightly over time, but it has essentially been constant since 2006 (hi peak oil). In an actual competitive system, the price of that oil would be fixed by the demand for it. If the price moved too high, then, although demand for oil is inelastic (doesn't change much with price), we'd see oil supply build up as people bought less. The most recent example where this happened in large scale was 2008, where prices dropped to 40% of what they are now due to an overabundance of supply. If prices are set competitively, then the price at the pump is set entirely by the price that is needed to balance consumption and production. No where in that equation do subsidies show up. If one company attempts to raise prices in response to subsidy cutoffs, then I can corner the oil market by starting another company with venture capital and selling gas at a lower price while still making money. The price should be determined entirely by supply and demand. The only way this breaks down is if the oil industry is operating as a legal monopoly. In that case, every provider is setting their price in agreement with others in the industry, and as such they can all decide to raise their prices simultaneously without having to worry about another provider undercutting the price. This is of course patently illegal. However, its the basis for 2k5's entire position. The only way that subsidies could possibly effect production is in the event that they made it profitable to produce oil that was not profitable without that. However, right now, profitability is not what is limiting oil production; lack of additional oil to produce is. The profit margins on every barrel of oil coming out of the ground right now are enormous. All that the subsidies are doing is adding to that profit margin, translating directly to profit. Ugh. -2008 wasn't caused by a an over-supply. It was caused by a drop in demand. Those are two very different things. -the oil industry is an oligarchy. It isn't quite a monopoly, but it is pretty close to it in terms of pricing and production. There really isn't true competition because a very few control the supply, which by its very definition means there isn't true competition. The biggest problem is that the supply isn't controlled domestically. -Final sale price affects amount produced. It's called profit motive. If you costs go up, whether it is due to supplies costing more, or the government cutting off your subsidies, production goes down. The source of the cost increase doesn't matter. I taught that very lesson in the first six weeks of high school economics.

QUOTE (Brian @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) Ya know, I would of been fine if the girl that accidently got the flowers in the shop was the mother. Dumb tease. I was all excited that it was the big reveal. then they threw the Pysch out there. Boo.

Here's the thing to keep in mind. Howard has never said he would only go to Chicago. Therefore there is nothing from stopping other teams from jumping in and blowing away whatever the Bulls offer Orlando.

QUOTE (elrockinMT @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Pitchers who can't keep runners close, can't adjust their timing when in the strtetch and such and have slow deliveries to the plate is the problem. AJP can't do much about that Stone really broke the numbers down in good detail. Last night, AJ didn't have a chance because of Edwin.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) Let's win this series first before we make that declaration. And should the Heat lose, so be it. Are you seriously going to criticize Riley for landing the three best players on the market? Shame on that man. The Heat's cast would not be nearly as bad had Haslem not gotten hurt and had Mike Miller not turned into Wite. That's just something they'll have to improve. That is kind of my point. You have three incredible players on that Miami team, and they still aren't the favorites to win it all. The Bulls would have only two stars, and a complete lack of depth. Haslem is legit, but Miller is the exact type of player the Bulls would be looking at to fill up their roster at minimum wage. He is absolutely a great example of the type of guys the Bulls would have to bring in. Legit players won't sign for that little money.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) I don't know. You offer the Bobcats' pick and maybe a Ronnie Brewer, it becomes intriguing. Howard is gone from Orlando after 2012, so the Magic will have to trade him to get something back. It really comes down to Brook Lopez and Andrew Bynum. Lopez is a soft big and Bynum is injury prone. While Noah may not be Lopez, Taj certainly offers some terrific value. It all depends who the Nets would be willing to offer in addition to Brook IMO. I personally think the Lakers won't trade for him unless maybe Gasol is the centerpiece, which is completely possible. That is what got you Carmelo. The deal being discussed here isn't even close.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) How many of the poor own farms? Do you really think every poor person who isn't near public transit lives on a farm?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:03 PM) Trading Noah and Taj for Howard isn't dismantling the team. The Bulls still would have Boozer and Asik down low and Howard can play a ton of minutes and is on a whole nother level. Plus his style of play would fit in perfectly with Thibbs and I suspect he would work tremendously with Rose. That type of deal would be a no-brainer for me, imo. That would be no where near enough to get Howard. Look at what Melo got traded for.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) Nice post. You're pairing the game's best defensive player with one of the game's great defensive minds and also arguably the game's top player right now. You do that every time. Wade/LeBron and especially 'Melo/Amare should not be compared to that because what the Bulls would have would be better. And Taj/Noah? The Magic would laugh at such a proposal... The lesson we have learned with these two teams is that if you gut your team to put superstars on the floor, you are going to have huge weaknesses that will get exploited in the playoffs.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ May 17, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) Honestly, and I'm sure it's just me that thinks this, I don't see this as a perennial 60 win outfit as currently constructed. This team overachieved by about 10 games if you ask me. The division was historically bad. And you got other teams with multiple stars that should be better in the future. The Heat. The Knicks. If the Nets can land Howard? Yikes. The Bulls have been great this year and don't have to apologize for anything. I just think it's delusional to say adding a monster like Howard would be detrimental because it could mess with team harmony. Please. NBA2K11 wouldn't even allow you to pair Rose/Howard without some kinda cheat code. I'll worry about finding another Taj Gibson in the draft or something. It has nothing to do with "team harmony" and everything to do with winning. This team is winning, right now, and doesn't really have any significant players you expect to fall off of a cliff. Really as young as this team is, you should expect improvement out of most of them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) I dont think Steve was being literal at all, I think he meant that if you have to give up Noah/Taj etc for Howard, is that a cost that makes sense. After watching this team with its interchangeable parts, do you really want to change the entire dynamic? The more I read about the Bulls and Rose, the more I feel that they should just keep this team as is. Improve on the core, instead of trading away pieces of the core for more "superstar". Howard is a monster, but Im not sure if he fits in with the dynamic of this team. And think more like what the Knicks sent to Denver. You are talking about starters, depth, and draft picks. Those are all of the things that his this team in a position to win right now. It would be different if this was a one and done team, but what they have now seems to be working. Maybe I'd change my mind if Miami won the next four games, but I don't see that happening.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:37 AM) I think you are thinking of JaJuan Johnson. You're right.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:19 AM) Can get a guard considerably cheaper. But who cares its not even close to the offseason and we have no idea what the CBA will look like next year. I also would be fine with drafting a guy like Etwaun Moore in the 2nd. I like Moore, but do we need another big man?

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) I would easily gut the Bulls entire roster (minus Rose of course) for Dwight Howard. Which would get you the New York Knicks.

QUOTE (Harry Chappas @ May 17, 2011 -> 11:02 AM) I wonder what package the Bulls would have to put together to get Dwight Howard. For the same package they could get a guard that would improve them more than Howard.

Quit while you are behind.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:33 AM) We are now losers of 10 of our last 11 at home. Awesome. I'll bet it is all of the booing and empty seats.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:26 AM) But right now, the Saudis are cutting oil production, claiming that the market is over-supplied. Ed Wallace was on Here & Now a couple of weeks ago and laid out the case in an editorial that the current prices are almost entirely due to speculation. If that's correct, then production subsidies won't really have an impact, right? If "speculation" is the cause, then production subsidies wouldn't have an effect unless "speculation" masked its evil participation by increasing prices.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 17, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) But how much does this really affect global oil supply? I can't imagine a US subsidy of ~$4B amounts to more than a percentage or two of worldwide oil production profits. Which means, to me at least, that'd it have little or no real impact on global oil prices. It all does. IIRC, the OPEC crisis of 1973 was caused by a 10% change in world wide supply.

QUOTE (NHDadUmp-RI @ May 17, 2011 -> 09:54 AM) Terry Doyle's last 4 starts: 28 Innings, 23 Hits, 4 Walks, 13 Strike outs, 9 Earned Runs, 2.89 ERA, 0-3, 1 ND Frustrating! Sounds like he is ready for the bigs!