Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:25 PM) It could potentially get the Bulls into that group 4 years from now. They need to draft superstars and then keep them forever. The days of stars leaving via Free Agency is going to be over. You keep saying this but every time the NBA tries to make this happen, stars still leave. You ignore that there are advantages beyond money for these guys. Endorsements, exposure, weather, income taxes, playing style, championships, etc. all play a factor. I think it will affect some guys. It's not going to kill FA signings or trades.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:42 AM) Jenks, Without being there it is really hard to ascertain what if anything could have been done differently. That being said, I think this type of "leak" is a by-product of Trump's previous attacks on the intelligence community. When you say how smart you are, how much better you are, how dumb they are, it breeds this type of finger pointing. Its possible someone in the military community wanted to get out ahead of the potential Trump tweet about how the "military failed him." But again, impossible to know. For all we no the military told him "dont attack yet, they are waiting" or it could have been Trump saying "I dont think its a good time, do you really think we should?" Unfortunately Trump's own actions have caused my immediate belief to be that it is the former (he insisted against their opinion) as opposed to the latter. Thats the price you pay for what Trump is doing. And it is why most successful leaders dont act like him. Totally agree. My first thought was he claimed to know more than the generals, so he opened himself up to this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:38 AM) I won't pretend to know exactly how these sorts of raids get planned, vetted and approved, but this is from the Reuters article posted earlier: Right, but again, to me that just screams that the DoD screwed up. That's their area of expertise. You can't fault a President for relying on his generals. If it came out that the generals kept advising Trump the plan wasn't going to work and they needed better intel, fine, but we don't really have that yet. I mean yes, to SB's point, at the end of the day the guy that gives the order is responsible. But it's not some negligence on his part that the operation didn't go off without a hitch, which seems to be the implication in the article.

From the NYT front page. Not sure how Trump (or Obama) are to blame for this. At some point some general had to tell either or both of them, "this is the plan, it's going to work."

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 05:04 PM) Completely disagree. J4L is right on the money with his assessment. I honestly wonder if other players have the same lack of respect for LBJ. Noone voted for him to be an all star. Not one player. ?? He got the most votes. http://official.nba.com/wp-content/uploads...ing-Results.pdf

Apparently he was on waddle and silvy this afternoon and didn't back down. Should be an interesting listen.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 03:13 PM) People can hate LeBron if they want but he's 100 percent right here. Nah, it was the worst comment to react to. Barkley is 100% right this time. Lebron is being a whiner for complaining about needing help when he has 2 other top 15 players on his team, the Cavs have the highest payroll in NBA history and LEBRON himself orchestrated the deals for guys like Shumpert, Thompson and Korver. He's the GM of the team b****ing about how the GM did a s***ty job. That's moronic. Barkley has always had a problem with Lebron being anointed King before he did anything to earn it. And I think that's going to continue his entire career given a lot of the odd things Lebron has done over time (no showing against Boston, the Decision, no showing against Dallas, and now b****ing about his stacked roster). By the way, I'm 100% convinced all of this stuff from Lebron is premeditated. The b****ing and whining about losing, the complaining about the roster and even the losing itself. It's all about his legacy. It sets up the narrative for a win or loss against the Warriors. Either they get crushed and he'll just say he called it 4 months prior and it was to be expected, or they win and he looks THAT much more impressive for carrying a struggling, undermanned team to a win over the Warriors for the 2nd time. A win-win for him either way.

This LBJ/Wade v. Barkley feud is kind of funny. Excited to see how Barkley responds.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) By the way, the Heat were a middling team (with a superstar) when they landed LBJ & Bosh and went on to play in a bunch of championship games (and win some rings). Prior to that, the Heat were a middling team with a young Dwade superstar, when they landed Shaq and won a title. I also gave the example of Kobe and the Lakers prior to getting Pau and how they went from a middling team back to a title contender like that. The Celtics were a middling to poor team (with a star in Paul Pierce) before getting an aging Allen / Garnett where they went on to win a title. Not many examples of teams who got to where they were by tanking / winning the lottery (and getting to the title). In fact, the Warriors are the only example of that (since the Cavs only got back after they "signed" LBJ). I suppose I should also count the Spurs, albeit, they were a great team, whose top player got hurt and they thus bombed and ended up winning the lotto and getting Duncan. Bulls had a chance to do this twice when Rose went down and they knew he'd be out for the year. They could have done a soft tank and gotten into the lottery. Instead Thibs grinded out meaningless 1st and 2nd round exits.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) I guess, but littlehurt said in his post that he bought the protection plan and the purchase was 15 months ago The complimentary 1 year warranty runs after the purchased warranty runs out? Or concurrently? They extend the manufacturer's warranty to 2 years instead of 1 on all electronics except tablets. https://www.costco.com/concierge.html

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Jenks, you are the exact fan I was talking about man. You really are content being the 6th seed in the East, huh? That's your prerogative but as a sports fan, I want my team to do everything they can to win championships. This plan is not that. I'm not but i'm also realistic. How many lottery picks pan out? How many become all-stars? How many become starters in the all-star game? History has proven that the "hauls" you get for superstar players rarely pan out. Denver traded Carmelo for a king's ransom according to all the experts and what have they gotten out of it? Minnesota received a haul for Garnett, including two first round picks, and did what with it? Granted you have the Kahn effect, but drafting Flynn and Rubio at 5 and 6 just proves top 10 picks don't always become good players. Butler gives you a name. Butler gives you some credibility with FA's. He's on a cheap deal. If anything the best play is to give it a go next year without the likes of Rondo and maybe you get lucky and Wade can convince someone like Chris Paul to come and play. The Bulls would have to overpay him, but Wade/Butler/Paul gives you a good enough 3 to seriously compete for a Finals spot. If Paul/Wade prove to be too old/ineffective, trade everyone at that point. You've got 3 full seasons after this one with Butler. No pressure to trade him right away.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) Even if we ignore the Bulls' history in landing FAs, this still doesn't deal with that huge change in the CBA from this year. Are you ok adding players in FA if anyone at Cousins's level and above never leaves their team again because they opened up the floodgates for those top players? It makes the top tier guys more difficult to sign, but I still think it's doable. A major market team like the Lakes, Knicks and Bulls can make up a lot of the difference in salary lost with endorsements/exposure.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:46 AM) What does this even mean? You think Costco tvs don't break on occasion? They offer a complimentary one year warranty on top of the manufacturer's warranty. I assume that's what he is referring to.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:42 AM) I actually must take back my refusal to deal Jimmy. Superstars normally don't net a proper return, but a deal with Boston could do just that. If we can get their two picks from the Nets and some combination of these guys -Jae Crowder, Jaylen Brown, Marcus Smart, Ante Zizic, well, that's one you roll with as you may be able to hit paydirt with either of those picks. Hell, this coming draft could wind up being the 1 overall. That gives the Celtics IT2, Al Horford, Jimmy, Bradley to roll deep into the East with. Ok, trade Jimmy to the Celtics! I don't think the Celtics are in must-trade mode though, that's the problem. They're good now and will only get better as they add these high lottery picks. If the Bulls couldn't get Wiggins + a 1st round pick from Minn, I don't see them getting 2 starters plus a #1-3 pick.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 09:17 AM) The Kings have been tanking for a decade and haven't done squat with it. The Bucks have been complete garbage for a decade and are only starting to reap the benefits now. For every example you have of teams that have to build through the draft there are examples of teams who stockpile mid-round picks and strike when the iron is hot. I have no doubt the Lakers will be fantastic again in a few years by keeping a guy or two and then offloading other guys at the right time. The Bulls NEVER improve through trade, which is what they need to do. They need to not fall in love with their s*** drafted talent and make moves while the league still believes in them. Instead, we sit on these guys and they're out of the league. It's been a while since the Bulls hit on a draft pick. While Jimmy will go down as an all-timer, here are their picks since then. Denzel Valentine (can't crack the lineup) Paul Zipser (starting to show something) Bobby Portis (still finding time in D league) Jusuf Nurkic and Gary Harris (dealt away, the two best players on this list selected by Denver, NOT Chicago) Cameron Bairstow (out of the league) Tony Snell (worthless in Milwaukee and ugly) Erik Murphy (out of the league) Marquis Teague (out of the league) Norris Cole (out of the league) Not a great run here. It's hard to improve your team and build around stars when you don't have enough interesting pieces to deal for them. Stars come available often, the Bulls just never deal for them. This is the same team that refused to include Tyrus Thomas in a deal for peak Pau Gasol. Totally agree. I'd rather get pick 14 with Jimmy on the team than draft 6-7 without Jimmy. The better avenue for the Bulls is to add players in FA, not the draft.

QUOTE (Con te Giolito @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) Democrats are going to be too busy telling each other how great they are and taking selfies at protests to bother asking people in the rust belt for their votes. They're gonna get rolled again and ask themselves how on earth it could have happened. "Trump was so evil, didn't you see us on TV and social media telling you so?" There was a moment of clarity for about 48 hours after the result of the election dropped where everyone seemed to understand that the identity politics and political correctness of the left alienated the traditional bedrock of their party. Now were back at it again, having a level 10 freakout over Trump resurrecting Obama's old policies. Protesting on the streets of cities like Seattle, the poster child for "I like people who aren't white to be on my TV, not in my neighborhood", accomplishes nothing. In a way it helps Trump, because nothing grinds the gears of the working poor more than bougie liberals LARPing as activists while ignoring issues that have been brooding in the belly of this country since the 70's. Someone watched Bill Maher this weekend:

So wait, he just made a statement and took no questions?? edit: and the statement amounted to: we talked to the players that we're upset. Thanks and have a good day.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 09:20 PM) Wow. <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"> I saw that but there are no capital letters in the passwords which make me think it's a butt tweet situation.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 04:38 PM) I totally agree with you on the bolded in the first post and that's really all you had to say and I am with you. Congress and bipartisanship is a broken system. I certainly don't act like the President can control the economy or all legislation. It goes without saying that it's incredibly hard for a president to get things done when you have congress split and battling with each other. The bolded in the second post basically is expressing the same idea but it's just unnecessary. Congress is a flawed system as you depicted in your first post. You have two opposing forces that disagree. Simple as that. I don't see the need to add that one is "insane." To say Congress is inept suffices but when you call a group ~250 people insane because they don't agree with your side of the aisle then your argument loses some of its validity. It takes two to fight. They'll fight until this democracy crumbles but it's not a matter of whether you support the left or right, they're both penetrated by special interests. They're both running on corporate money. They both have very little concern for the American people. It's a business and they're all complicit whether they're on your team on or not. To act as if one is superior to the other just emboldens this bastardized form of democracy we call our government. The rest not directed at bmags but just my opinion. Where I take issue with Pres. Obama is on things that aren't big public spectacles. Pres Obama running on the idea that he is a constitutional lawyer and all for freedom of information and then acting the way he did in office was a total deviation from what he sold himself as and a complete departure for what is good for the individual Americans. His expansion of the drone program and the murdering of all the civilians in the Middle East was a total deviation from the centrist, dove he purported himself to be. Then his administration had the gall to not even acknowledge the word drone for years while they're using cell phone data to blow up Yemeni's who may or may not be militants. That's not of public interest. That's not of Congressional importance. That's on him and his administration. Nobody on this site had their arms up in air or agreed with me when I brought it up in the past. I thought the left was suppose to be anti-war? I'll be interested to see the reactions if/when Trump (and he likely will) levies the same powers. But to the point that nobody talks about the big things once they're done - Nobody is talking about the loss of rights for Americans or the expansion of power. Nobody was talking about his use of the Executive order. His actions as President went beyond what the position was supposed to entail. He created precedent and brought a wider range of powers to the executive branch. That's a problem. All of these changes are available for Trump to exploit and the people who weren't even acknowledging it during Pres. Obama's administration are going to have a big problem when Trump flexes the newly afforded powers. Frankly, no one knows what Trump is actually capable of, but from a legal standpoint, Trump's capabilities as President are more diverse than any President before him because of changes and precedent brought on by the Obama Administration. That's not a bipartisan issue, that's an American issue. I think someone posted the link to the article in another thread, but let's not forget he (and his staff) also spent the first few months of his Presidency attacking Fox News and claiming it wasn't a journalistic news organization (much like Trump and CNN) and they required security reports to be vetted by the White House before release (much like Trump has done with the EPA). It's not apples to apples, but Obama is not a saint. It's amazing how people forget about the VA scandal. That was his Katrina and it's still not fixed and there's little to no coverage on it.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 04:10 PM) How so? The final national polls had Clinton +3 points. The result was +2. Some individual states were a bit off, but mainly those that didn't have a lot of polling right at end, after Comey's letter. He won in many places that were not supposed to be close, like Florida. Predictions were that Hillary had a 95% chance, 90% chance, 80% chance to win. Wasn't the lowest in the 70's? I'm just saying, a lot of the polling data was wrong. A lot of the models were wrong. Why rely on them to show the uptick after Comey's comments, or use worse data in exit polls to show that people decided the last week of the campaign. At best, that data is suspect and calls into question a conclusion based on them. It's not a slam dunk confirmation that the Comey letter or the DNC email leaks won him the election. There are other, bigger factors at play, most notably the candidate herself. edit: looking at Silver's analysis, which was one of the more "fair" ones for Trump's chances (28.6%), Wisconsin was 83.5%, Michigan was 78.9% and Penn was 77% in favor of Hillary winning. Florida was 55%, so more of a toss-up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 03:12 PM) The swings in the polling data of several percentage points directly associated with James Comey's announcement are clear as can be, as is the clear lead amongst people who say they made up their mind who to vote for during that weak. It's the equivalent of several percentage points, vote numbers nationally over a million. Donald Trump does not win without that. Polling data that was proven to be inaccurate come election night. Significantly so. And exit polling data is notoriously inaccurate, why believe people who say they decided the last week? You know how many people fessed up to voting for Trump? Less than those that actually did!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 02:30 PM) These were all at least partial factors in a very close election. You can argue that Clinton shouldn't have been as vulnerable to them as she was and that a different candidate would still have beaten Trump, but it seems silly to just dismiss that they played any role at all. They played A role, I don't think they played a significant one. People try to argue it swung the election and they use pre-election data for support. But that pre-election data was proven wrong on election night. Why can't Dems just accept Hillary was a less than stellar candidate, she did a poor job picking key battleground areas and there was a huge movement that she (and others) didn't account for?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 02:22 PM) That is the crazy thing. He really didn't spend a lot of resources anywhere. Hillary outspent him about 2:1. Even in party money and PAC money, Trump got destroyed. But Comey and Russia and voter suppression.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 01:23 PM) Yeah? (seriously asking, shockingly not being snarky) I mean minorities are growing there like everywhere, but 10 years ago you didn't have a liberal hotbed like Austin. I think there's been a sizeable influx of young liberals moving down there. edit: Dallas too. I believe that's strongly Dem now.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 26, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) For instance, yeah Trump won a few traditionally blue states, but Texas has never been closer over the last 30 years. Voter suppression is a GOP tactic to defend against the eventuality where red states flip blue due to minority demographics. Texas' shift has more to do with whites than minorities.