southsider2k5

GeneHondaCivic DaCheat forever Happy Birthday Dude!!!

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 08:51 PM) I don't agree with him straight down the line, but I'd agree Dylan has earned the right to say what he wants to say. And after the tragic death of John Lennon and Kurt Kobain, I don't know that there is a lyricisit alive who owns the right to say that like Dylan. And I will say it is interesting to see who replied to this before most.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 08:34 PM) Thanks for the 4 f***ing rebounds and 4 of 12 shhoting, you worthless sack of crap. I'm talkin to YOU Curry. I hope they can do a sign and trade to get another inside defender when they send him to New York. :headshake Out of curiousity, I wonder if a sign and trade for Carlos Boozer has any chance? Do the salaries match up?

http://www.nme.com/news/111454.htm I don't know how anyone understood it to report it, but there is the link.

QUOTE(JimH @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 07:22 PM) Nice try ... but you're the leader of the assumption parade. IMO if you'd stick with commenting on baseball itself, where your knowledge of the game comes out vs. these goofy conspiracy theories and your KW sucks mantra, you'd be better off. I really do think you enjoy posting things you know will stir up controversy. It's extremely annoying, which has been aptly pointed out by several long term respected posters in this thread. Texsox said it best in his congratulatory message to you re: posting the exact same sentiment for the 1000th time. Everyone gets your POV, you're not going to change anyone's mind. Please consider giving it a rest. Thanks. Well at least he gave up on the "Sox have an extra $30 million to spend" thing.

QUOTE(Steff @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 08:09 PM) You've been invited to meet many of us many times at many games. And at Soxfest he let us walk right by supposedly.

QUOTE(knightni @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 07:47 PM) Chandler and Harrington with 4 fouls each = bad interior rebounding and defense. Ouch. Maybe Curry will save us with his great rebounding skills! Even in green, that's just wrong. That's kinda like saying France will be there for us

Mistake #1 was being born...

I'd probably go.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 06:15 PM) PA said what I was thinking, by expressing my views on the matter, was I telling you what to do (rhetorical question, I know you weren't necessarily referring to me in particular but it raises a point I'd like to try and make). I can't live life for anyone but me. I can offer my opinions, suggest things to try and help, but at the end of the day (where's the overly used cliche thread, hehe) "Its not even that?"

QUOTE(CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 05:17 PM) Madison gets plenty of credit. Most people have at least heard of him and plenty could tell you at least something about him. Where's the love for James Polk?!?!?! They named a dance craze after him... EVERYBODY POLK-A!!!

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 03:15 PM) Yes he is. I don't remember what it was for. I think it was something pretty petty though. It seems like it was a robbery, but I can't remember for sure.

Ouch. That makes the East WIDE open.

That is way cool. Thanks for posting it.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 02:56 PM) No. Sprewell played 77 games his first year in the league and started 69 of them so there is really no comparison that way. Sprewell has also never shot over 40% from the three point line. Gordon is yet to choke anyone or complain he does not get paid enough to feed his family. Wasn't it Ben Gordon who did time? If not which of the UConn players was it?

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 02:50 PM) Don't think you can call him that. When i think of pass first guards i think of brevin knight, t.j. ford, etc. He leads the team in shots per game which is a joke. Not saying it is his fault he is just doing what he is told to do i assume. But deng, curry, gordon, pike, whoever all need to start taking some shots away from him. No doubt someone else needs to shoot. The problem is the whole league knows he can't even hit wide open jumpers so they double off of him onto the legit scorers. He gets so many wide open looks, plus he plays way more minutes than anyone else, so he ends up leading the team in shots.

"I wonder if he is thinking what I am thinking? Meow, meow, meow, meow, meow, meow..."

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 02:26 PM) Hinrich is known as being one of the best perimeter defenders in the nba. Also, hinrich takes much better shots than gordon? Whenever he drives he just throws the ball up at the rim hoping it goes in. Gordon on the other hand has a clue of where the rim is. Gordon has had a few questionable shots but i am willing to say he takes better shots ( not forcing anything). The only time Hinrich throws up s***, is at the end of a shot clock, because he most likely has the ball. Gordon on the other hand can throw up some crazy s***, and that's usually what ends him up on the bench. Heck there were a couple of shots in OT that we nuts. One he didn't even manage to hit rim on. Hinrich is very much a pass first, shoot second kind of guy. And he is definately not a guard who can create his own shot. Most of his shots come from the perimeter on kickouts from the post, and most of the time he can't even hit those looks.

Boy that is one of those "how come I didn't think of that" ideas. Hopefully that could cut down on Gapers.

I'm not a big Hinrich fan, so you won't get much arguement out of me there. The one thing he does well is distribute the ball. But he plays OK defense, his big problem being he gets caught a step behind and has to take flops to try to draw calls. As a shooter, he takes much better shots than Gordon does (he doesn't force anything) but he just is an awful shooter.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 02:00 PM) SouthSide.. Going by those numbers that should leave us anther 30+mil to spend, yet we get told that our payroll is set there.. this is why I b**** we could have afforded better players then Dye and Hermanson Im not saying spend all 30.mil I be happy if we could have spent 15 more on getting some better kids in here. Not even close. It is saying there are $51 million in expenses related to running this major league baseball team that aren't directly related to the players. It is pretty clear that there wasn't a $50 million profit made, there was $13 million. It is right there in black and white under "operating income" of $12.8 million with the explanation of operating income as "(4) Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. " There was no extra $30 million. It went to running the team. There are a myriad of things it takes to run an MLB team, that have nothing to do with players. Scouts, management, travel expenses, advertising, ballpark matience, ushers, web designers, equiptment, electricity, heck I could go on forever, but you get the point.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 01:51 PM) I believe you mean profit not operating income. I am sticking with Forbes terminology.

The world hasn't seen something like this since the influenza outbreaks of the 'teens right? Or would AIDS fall under something like this?

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 01:49 PM) Well i know that if defense was so important to most coaches third string guys would be the starters on most teams. Since alot of the good offensive players are not exactly very good on defense. Ben isn't even "not exactly very good on defense" or he would be getting 40 minutes a night. Plain and simple. It doesn't do any good to score 25 a night when you give up 35 on the other end of the floor. It is the same reason that Tyson Chandler is in a game during the stretch run, and Eddy Curry is on the bench waving a towel.

QUOTE(AnthraxFan93 @ Feb 23, 2005 -> 01:27 PM) Huh? No the revenues that you gave me that showed the gate numbers, come on now.. you gotta do better than that. Well I have been waiting for you to do better than the same old conspiracy theory's and that hasn't happened. Once again, since you seem to have forgotten it already, here is the Forbes article. http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2004/0426/066tab_19.html 2003 season's operating income was almost $13 million. The 2004 payroll went up about $14 million over the 2003 payroll. Coincidence? I think not. Also if you actually read the article gate receipts were only $32 million, which means their total revenue number was indeed their total revenue, which blows that whole "hiding revenue" conspiracy out of the water. Yes the Sox had over $90 million in revenues that were not gate receipts. Forbes is a great source for this info as they are experts in corporate structure and actually understand what goes into financial reports and how to dissect them They are a much better source of info than you will get out of JR or MLB. You should try looking for your info there.