Jenksismyhero

While I don't agree with the repeal (or at least the replace part of the repeal), especially in regards to pre-existing coverage, I chuckle a little at the hysterics here. Reminds me a lot of the "death panel" nonsense Palin, et al. used to spew.

So my wife and I took our oldest kid to a kindergarten orientation yesterday at the school he'll be going to in the fall. Holy crap was that a surreal experience. He's in a kindergarten class now with the same curriculum at his daycare, but for some reason being at the school itself made it more "real." Definitely brought back memories of my own childhood with the small lockers, the hallways, etc. It was a bit frustrating hearing the Principal talk so much about data and standardized testing. It's a blue ribbon school so i'm sure they've gotten everything down to a science in terms of preparing the kids for each subsequent grade, but it all seemed like a factory. Maybe it was that way when I was a kid too, I dunno. I sure never felt like that as a student though. I was also a little surprised that they were telling parents that it was ok if your 5 year old didn't know any letters or numbers yet. My son can do simple math and has already started reading. He's going to be in trouble all the time if he has to start back at square one.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ May 5, 2017 -> 08:38 AM) How much do top basketball shoes cost nowadays anyway? Like the LeBron or Curry shoe? On Footlocker's website Lebron's go for $100-175. It would be so awesome if this Kardashian-clone goes undrafted.

Really though, even if it's a financial wash, she still may want to work. It all depends on your kids obviously, but mine are two very energetic boys. I'd burn out very quickly if I had to stay at home alone with them all day. My wife, I think, would be in a similar boat. And just getting out of the house and feeling productive may be a benefit, even if it's not really a contribution to the family financially. Both of my kids are in daycare. My almost-5 year old is leaving to start real school in the fall. We'll go from paying about $325/week for him to $90 (before and after school care). My 11 month old still has a ways to go, but at least we've figured out how to manage 2 in daycare at a time, so if #3 happens we can handle it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 3, 2017 -> 08:57 AM) It's still $300+ a week if we're looking at 45-50 hours (7:30 drop-off, 4:30 pickup), ugh. At least we get a 10 week or so relief during the summers since my wife's a teacher. Wait until you have 2 or 3 in daycare at one time.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 1, 2017 -> 02:52 PM) Well I think we can definitely assume that KC and Houston were trying to trade up. (Well just use a random chart as reference) http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/draft...ft-trade-chart/ KC's offer was worth 680 (27) + 136 (91) + next years first (this is not on the chart but lets presume its worth the least amount which is 590= 1,406 (Chart values 10 as 1,300 so its close.) The 49ers pick is worth approximately 2,600. In order for KC to move up that far, theyd have had to throw in the equivalent of almost 2 more 1st rounders. Which is why many wanted the Bears to use the 3 to move down. IE If KC wanted to move up you were looking at something like Bears #3 (2,200) for KC 1st (680), 2nd this year (310) and 1st (590), 2nd (270) next year is only 1,850 so theyd likely have gotten an additional 3rd in the next year plus. As someone who almost always proposes trading down, its hard to pass up 2 1sts, 2 2nds plus when you are a team that is likely to be terrible. Again no way to know if anyone was offering anything close, but if they werent then Bears were bidding against themselves, if they were then Bears could have gotten a huge haul to move down. And ultimately that's why I don't get this move. It's a poor draft for QB's. The team will be terrible next year and in the top 5 again. Maybe even the following season. So get your roster loaded with young talent and THEN find your QB. Even if that QB fails, at least you have a decent roster that can mature over a couple of seasons. If good enough, maybe you can find a QB in FA that can put you over the top. Instead Pace completely gambled and either (1) gave away potential 3rd and 4th round picks, or worse, (2) gave away those 3rd and 4th round picks PLUS whatever they could have gotten for the #3 this year. Instead of filling 5-6 positions of need, they got 1.

QUOTE (Sox-35th @ May 1, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) Woj to ESPN per the Score. That is a big hire for the four letter network. Woj has basically been owning ESPN for a long time in the realm of NBA player transactions Terminate a bunch of people so that you can hire the highest priced FA writer out there.

And guys like Mike Lombardi have asked around and can't find anyone that made those calls. So someone is lying somewhere.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 1, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) There is a difference between the top 5, and trading down in the 4th when you are talking about single pick sums. How do you think people knew certain teams wanted to trade up and down? You think they don't set baselines? I guess, but at the end of the day those trades are still made in time. I'm not saying he shouldn't have made a call to gauge interest in the 49ers trading out of 2 before the draft, but it seemed really stupid to have a deal in place, especially when that deal was "i'll offer you at least this!" If you're Lynch you now hold all the cards in the negotiation. At least in the moment on draft day he may not be able to call back and demand more. It's a s*** or get off the pot situation. But he didn't have to worry at all because he already knew that Pace was going to offer him something AND he was going to be ok giving up more.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ May 1, 2017 -> 12:52 PM) You are relying on 2nd/3rd hand accounts of what was discussed on draft day though, we have no idea what was discussed leading up to draft day nor do we have any idea what Pace was offered for the 3rd pick, which could have driven him to say what you think he said I'm relying on what Peter King was told directly by the negotiating parties. My issue is that Pace made an offer that Lynch knew wasn't the final offer. Pace let it be known (1) what he wanted, (2) that he wanted it really badly and (3) he was willing to pay even more than what he offered.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 1, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) That is incredibly common. There is not that much time between picks for long negotiations. There were 70ish trades in this draft. The vast majority were spontaneous. There is plenty of time to get a deal done. It was moronic for Pace to tell Lynch that he'd be willing to offer "at least" two 3rd round picks before the draft started. If that's the way Pace wanted to go, you call up Lynch in the moment and ask him what it would take. All Pace accomplished was letting Lynch know he could drive up the price because he knew how much Pace wanted to trade up.

OK, what the hell: Why on earth is this understanding already out there, before the draft begins? Pace played his intentions before the cards were dealt. He opened the door for Lynch to drum up some fake interest in the 2nd pick, knowing full well that Pace was willing to pay more for it. What a colossal, moronic mistake by Pace.

That's some world class negotiation right there by Trump. Really took it to them.

Mort is reporting that John Fox didn't know they were picking Trubisky until hours before the draft. Good thing the front office is on the same page with the coaching staff.

If the Bears were getting calls from those same teams to move to 3, it likely confirmed to Pace what he was hearing from Lynch. I don't think he acted unreasonably there in terms of sensing that others were involved with the 2.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Apr 27, 2017 -> 08:09 PM) I disagree. His tools are average. I've known about this Kid since high school. He's not a franchise QB. Save this post and I'll gladly own up if I'm wrong. But I'm certain I'm not. Wasn't he a Mr Ohio and didn't get an offer from OSU? Doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

This is so beyond dumb. If they knew this was their pick and they were willing to pay a ransom for him, why on earth sign Glennon? They got fooled so hard thinking the Browns would take him. He's not good, they have too many holes to fill to waste picks, and they're going to suck next year so getting a top 5 pick and a chance at a QB is still there. God I wish the NFL would bring a new franchise to town so I can stop being a fan of this awful f***ing franchise

So many awful, sloppy turnovers.

Dwayne Wade, what the f***? Too veteran to box out or play defense?He has been awful. This team is so friggin soft.

Signs are pointing in Illinois' direction....Piper is quoted as saying "he's coming"

QUOTE (Brian @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 04:03 PM) I'm convinced 1/4 have to have fallen asleep on the couch or left their TV or cable box on when they left for work. Yeah I assumed 95% of that is from bars having ESPN on all day long.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 03:30 PM) Does he though? That's the obvious reason people think he's still around but it's not like anything he does brings in a ton of viewers. https://sportstvratings.com/pardon-the-inte...l-14-2017/7975/ PTI, Around the Horn and Sportscenter do better in the 18-40 demo. I don't know why he's paid so well, only bringing in 242k viewers in that demo and 391k total. edit: and btw, that's still an alarming number of people that can sit through his asinine shtick.

QUOTE (SoxPride18 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) I don't watch ESPN at all anymore. I don't remember the last time I watch SportsCenter or any show on ESPN outside of a game. Yep, me too. And there are tens of millions more that are the same. Other than the actual games, there's very little reason for ESPN to exist. Sportscenter isn't necessary anymore. There's 100 other ways to get your sports information.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 12:04 PM) Umm... can you provide examples of ways in which the Democrats have "pretended" to help the little guy? Because the ACA and Dodd-Frank both were pretty "little guy" friendly pieces of legislation just off the top of my head. Your argument seems to boil down to the fact that discussing the wage gap means you are anti-wealth, and that by fundraising from the wealthy, you are explicitly refusing to help the poor. I really do not understand that logic. I mean, I think that Trump actually did what you are suggesting - telling the little guy he was going to help them and bring back all the jobs while not pushing policies that actually accomplish that. But I fail to see where the Obama administration, and then the Clinton campaign didn't propose policies to help the little guy. You can both help the little guy and not destroy the free market! I'm not saying you can't do both. I'm saying I can see where Dems will be hurt when they campaign on certain positions (e.g., for Main Street and not for Wall Street). It makes that argument more difficult when leading Dems take $400k to show up at a Wall Street conference to give a speech. I don't know why you're contesting this. This is something that Hillary was attacked for during the primary and general and something that voters took issue with. It had an effect on her support. Again, not saying Obama shouldn't/can't do this, just that I can see there being a consequence if it becomes routine.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Apr 26, 2017 -> 09:30 AM) None of those quotes say what you said earlier though. Yes, Dems have railed against income inequality and have hammered at some of the issues on Wall Street to push that argument. But if you specifically argued that the Dems have made people with money the enemy. And that is very much not what either Clinton the candidate or Obama the President have done or said. When you make a main street v. wall street argument and pretend that you're going to help the little guy and stop the rich from benefiting at the expense of everyone else (all while pretending that you're not in that rich group) you're effectively calling them an enemy. They argue that because of "them" you aren't getting what you should be getting. They might not have explicitly said the word "enemy" before, but that's clearly the intent.