Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) So in other words, it's really, really tough to trade those draft picks for him. Could they trade them for Love/Afflalo before the draft since those guys are under contract? That works right? Yes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) Would the Bulls actually be able to get a deal done before the draft for someone like Anthony who has already indicated he's opting out? That's a bunch of rules I have no idea about. Not under the rules. They can't even talk to Anthony until July 1st.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 12:36 PM) I dont think you are looking for Payne to carry an offense. But if the Bulls believe they are going to get Melo or someone who can score, having a guy like Payne to back up Taj and generally give good defensive minutes isnt the worst thing you can have on your team. I just think at worst your getting a guy who can contribute in the first year. I mean, yeah if they get Melo that's fine as a back-up. But I don't want any more guys on the team that are good defense/good rebounder types. I want offensive players. Otherwise they're just setting up for failure again. We need guys to shoot. That's how you beat Miami. See, the Spurs.

I dunno, I guess he'd be a stretch 4 but I don't know that his shot is good enough for that. Seemed to me in college 80% of his points came from put backs, not any offensive moves. I think he gets swallowed up by NBA defenses.

Lavine won't drop that far. And no thanks on Payne. Just not an NBA player IMO. At best he's a bench guy. Too many other guys with legit potential.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 12:07 PM) This. We need guys who can score. Even better would be guys who can create their own scoring. Stauskas to me is the next JJ Reddick/Kyle Korver, but potentially better because he's bigger and handles the ball well. He'd be an absolute steal if the Bulls could trade up to get him. As a Big Ten guy who watched a ton of his games, he's 100% legit. Gary Harris may also be a good option, but he's a little undersized and doesn't shoot it nearly as well. McDermott is a tweener and isn't as athletic as Stauskas. I wonder about his off-the-dribble capability. But so what, he can be a spot up guy for Rose.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 11:52 AM) Isn't the Charlotte pick this year? Ah, you're right. I was thinking of the Cavs pick from the Deng trade.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 11:43 AM) I cant comprehend why in the world you would want to move up for McDermott or Stauskas when they are going to be as good (if not better) options available at the Bulls 2 picks. Id take 1 of Ennis/Napier then your choice of Lavine/Anderson/Payne/Hood. Dont really like trading up unless its for a top 5. where your worst case scenario is Randall/Embiid/Exum I want scoring. Those are your best shooters in the draft. That's exactly what the Bulls need.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 11:30 AM) I don't really see how the Bulls are getting Afflalo if they use their picks this year? They could go into their future picks too, including that Charlotte pick next year.

Congrats man! I've been to SA a couple times now, including this spring. Great city. People were extremely nice.

ah, and Afflalo, forgot that. Good addition. I'd be ok with that team as plan B. Better than 2010's version of the Bulls, who happened to be in the ECF against full-power Heat.

I love how yesterday it was all happy stories, today is "let's get serious, the bulls will get no one." (see also: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/jon-greenb...reams-in-check) Here's what I want to happen: Amnesty Boozer. Bring Mirotic over. Move up to the late lottery and get Stauskas or McDermott. Continue to push for Love/Melo. If it happens, great, if not, oh well. Bulls are the Bulls. In basketball hell.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 09:55 AM) Yes, the world is not binary. Saying a racist or bigoted thing or even believing in that ideology for a while but eventually realizing why it's wrong and changing is a good thing. Being a pretty much unrepentant asshole or someone who's completely oblivious that what they're saying is racist or bigoted is different. When you have a pattern of s***ty behavior and show no signs of recognizing it and working to correct it, you're going to be called out for being a s***head. It's not that complicated. edit: a weird contradiction on part of Oldman's argument is that Baldwin is generally a pretty outspoken liberal but caught a lot of flack for his anti-gay slurs. That sort of undermines the whole "liberals get a free pass" claim. I think it was a general point, most of Hollywood is liberal. Most of Hollywood gets a pass. Even Jonah Hill did, despite his PR blitz apologizing for it.

So is there a threshold then of when you use that kind of language that you become the racist/bigoted f***? I'm a little confused. Jonah Hill - 1, not enough. Gibson/Baldwin, 2-3+, definitely racist/bigoted f***s. So everyone gets one free pass? And yeah, Bill Mahr is criticized, I guess. But he's still got his soap box. Mel was run out of town (rightly or wrongly, i'm not defending him).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) Oldman chose to champion Mel Gibson. Oldman said this: No, we all haven't. Maybe Oldman is just as much of a racist, bigoted f*** as Gibson is and is just projecting what he says or thinks in private on to everyone else. Not everyone slips into disgusting racism or antisemitism when they're drunk, just racists and antisemites. Just to be clear then, using Jonah Hill as an example, he called someone a f**, so he's forever labeled as a bigoted f***, right?

SCOTUS rules against Aereo. There goes your non-cable streaming option for TV.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 25, 2014 -> 08:51 AM) Everyone has said awful things. Not everyone says or even thinks internally that their wife should be "raped by a pack of n*****s." That's not about "political correctness" unless you're defining political correctness as not being a bigoted s***head. Not everyone actually thinks horribly racist, homophobic or sexist remarks in private. edit: holy s*** the auto-filter blocks "s***" but not "n*****s" No, they certainly don't, but people say terrible things in the heat of the moment. That doesn't mean they're an awful person or a racist or a bigot, etc. Jonah Hill just said some awful things, and despite his apology, he still said it. He's not a terrible person, he just said something stupid. Again, I think Gibson and Baldwin have proven themselves over time with multiple incidents to be not very good people, but to the extent that we all overreact to this things and pretend like we're all saints, I think he's absolutely right.

Here you go, the new policy is inviting illegals to come here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/25/4199...stay-drive.html

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 03:25 PM) If Chad Ford is right that Mirotic would be one of the 5 first picks in this draft, would you really trade him just to clear salary space? when did he say that?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 03:24 PM) Nope. Obama is going to set the deportation record some time this year (if he hasn't already). Most occur within 100 miles of the border. This is why Republican immigration policy is so ridiculous, because it's 180 degrees from reality. That's why anything short of "giant wall and deport 'em all!" is called amnesty. Immigration wasn't really an issue until his second term, which sort of coincides with that sharp drop in deportations you see there at the end of the graph... edit: and just so it's said, I wasn't really cool with Bush's lax approach on immigration or Reagan providing his blanket amnesty back in the 80's. edit 2: I also find it difficult to find this graph very accurate when, for example, the Obama admn refuses to give out the numbers of people who have actually been allowed in to the country, as noted in my previous link. And how do these numbers compare to the amount of illegals trying to get in? I know there was a dip during the recession, but are more people trying to get in now than 10 years ago? If so, his numbers being more than Bush or anyone else doesn't matter as much.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 02:12 PM) It averages out to about $15 billion a year, it's going up at much faster than the rate of inflation. Was about $10 billion a year late in the Bush term and is closing in on $20 depending on what spending bills pass. You may also note that massively increasing border spending has seemingly had very little impact on this conversation, as the exact same conversation literally was had on this page in 2007. Not sure that's really a fair way to look at it when they're not being told to keep people out, they're being told to look the other way. Nevertheless, border security has always been half-assed anyway. Can't really expect to control the border if you don't control the whole border.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 01:47 PM) Well first of all, I'd like to know more about exactly what we spend it on than I do. Second, at $15B per year or so (based on your information), that seems like a number too low to me as a percentage of our budget for something as key as immigration and border security. It also changes nothing of what I said. Of course it is what is available here. It just isn't what you are thinking. People who leave a central american country to go to some other central or south american country are just going to another disaster. Here they are safer, there is more economic opportunity, and if they do go to jail it is a whole different world. Very few of these immigrants are getting welfare checks anyway. Not sure what makes you think they are. What's hilarious about all this is, I took something pretty close to the current GOP position on this topic... and I STILL have people trying to make these people out to be something cartoonishly evil with no basis in reality. Well they're not getting "checks," but they're certainly utilizing government services that they are, generally speaking, not paying for, or not paying their share of. This is especially true if they have children with citizenship here (education, medical plans, etc). I'm not saying your position is outlandish, I actually agree with most of it. I'm just saying there is a reason they're choosing the US and it's not just to escape they're home life. There's something to be gained here economically. More than just an opportunity.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Teams eye LeBron, Melo pairing Ha, do it Lebron/Melo. That'd be awesome to watch Lebron lose as a Laker. I doubt that team would make it to the conference Finals, let alone win a championship. I mean, there's a zero percent chance Lebron is leaving the East.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 24, 2014 -> 12:33 PM) Seeing this issue through the lense of a single 8 year old kid at your doorstep lends humanity, but it doesn't change the larger picture whatsoever. Fact is, you cannot just open the borders if you expect this country to continue to thrive. It pains me that we feel the need to send military assets all over the globe, often for causes only loosely (if at all) connected to protecting American interests... but we cannot secure the plumbing of our own southern border. We spent over a TRILLION dollars on the Iraq debacle, but we cannot find $100M to set up the infrastructure we need on the border, and cannot put our military to it's most important use - protecting our nation from direct incursion. There are two ways to secure the border - real walls or virtual walls. You really need a combination, most often the latter because it is cheaper and has fewer nasty side effects. It will cost lots of money, but nothing compared to some of these foreign engagements. Securing the border has to be one of the three pillars of any policy. Second pillar, make any changes necessary to the legal immigration system that is focused on economy and jobs. Break down people at skill levels coming in, determine level of job needs by industry, and set up quotas. Randomize source countries - no specific lists for specific other countries. That then determines how many people at what skill levels and areas can come in, and you have a lottery or a waiting list. Third, you have to deal with who is already here that arrived illegally. Shipping them back to Mexico or wherever they came from illegally is impractical, that can only be reserved for those committing serious crimes. The rest, you need to set up a temporary visa program, with steps in it to eventually - after a very long time - gain citizenship. Lots of things you can do to make this work well, via military or government work and private industry together. Some call this amnesty - I call it reality. The fourth item isn't really a core policy piece, but needs to be addressed - what do you do with the kids who are already here illegally with no one to care for them? This one is very sticky, but I think you need to not think of a single solution, but instead many. For countries of origin where they can be ascertained, you send them back - this is a much smaller group, so it is practical to do so. For countries who refuse American ships and planes and buses with these kids, or where countries cannot be determined, you work with as many private social services entities you can, and place as many as you can. By the time you do all the above, you should be down to a small number to go into state systems. None of this is changed by the presence of these kids, except to further emphasize the same exact needs we already had. I hurt for these kids, and I fully disagree with some peoples' characterization that they are just trying to get that awesome welfare money. Preposterous. They are escaping hell, hoping for something better, and the ones old enough to work will work for it (most of them anyway - just like most already-Americans). But again, nothing changes the needs that already existed. Come on. If they were just looking for a place to escape to, there are other countries they could go to. But they come here because they (1) will be accepted and probably won't be sent back and (2) will get benefits (medical, food, shelter) that they probably won't get elsewhere. The recent influx of people that started this thread are coming from central american countries, not just mexico. They could head south if they wanted to. But again, they don't, because of what's available here.

queue J4L saying you're crazy and any team with Bron Bron is the clear cut favorite.