Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 11:32 AM) Did they take $15 million less? I got the impression it was about $5 million less. Anyway, I'm not arguing against the Bird rights per se, but the whole NBA system is a mess. You can't be competitive without spending a ton, but if you try to be competitive by spending a ton you're likely to get screwed anyway. I'm coming to the realization that the owners are probably right, and the thing the NBA is going to need is to move to a partially-guaranteed contract situation to give the owners a way to compete on the FA market but to do so without killing their team if they miss. I think their max deals would have been 6 years, 125 million, but they got 6 years, 110 (107 for wade).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 11:13 AM) The Draft? I'd respond to that with 2 points. First...if you keep the Bird rights, then Cleveland could have kept upping the ante until no other teams left. Miami could offer him up to the salary cap but no more, then Cleveland could counter with a $30 million a year offer, and frankly, for Cleveland, he'd have been worth it. Second...if you keep the cap in place, I think it makes it more likely that a smaller market can afford a guy like that, because even a team like the Grizz, if they could clear $25-30 mil in cap space, would suddenly have the opportunity to dump it all on one superstar and win the race for him. The problem of course would wind up being that 5 teams would clear max space and somehow the Bulls would wind up paying Carlos Boozer $28 million/year. I'm confused. Are you arguing that the Bird rights are good or bad? To me, that's the only way teams like the Cavs can keep their drafted superstars after their rookie year ends. I just don't like the idea of a free for all in a sport where only 5 guys play. You'd be creating the Yankees but on an even worse scale. I think this year is an aberration because you talked 2 superstars and one all star into taking ~15 million less just to play together. That's a pretty unique situation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 10:50 AM) I think he's saying that if the owners hadn't imposed the Max deal, guys like LBJ would likely earn even higher salaries and as such a team like Miami couldn't afford to bring in 3 FA's on huge deals all at once. That is one plausible effect of creating a max deal at that level...it brings some of the 2nd tier guys up to "max" level (see: Rudy Gay) but forces the top of the top of the top (i.e. James) down in salary. But if you don't impose the max deal there's no way Cleveland ever gets a guy like Lebron.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 10:27 AM) and if there was no max deal? The Cavs offered him a max deal, he chose not to take it. I dunno what more Stern can do.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 10:00 AM) how do you figure? the financial incentive of the 6 year max deal with the home team.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jul 13, 2010 -> 09:42 AM) it's disgusting. kill yourself david stern. why is it his fault? he made the system more difficult for these types of things to happen.

So, I need to find a new show to get sucked into (drama preferably). Anyone have any suggestions? The guidelines: (1) my fiance and I moved recently and decided to do away with cable. So we're limited to Netflix and the interwebs. (2) to get a feel for my taste in shows, my recent favorites include: Breaking Bad, Lost, Mad Men, Deadwood, The Wire, Sopranos, etc. Anyone every watch Battlestar Galactica? Normally i'm not an outer space kind of guy, but lots of people associate it with Lost, so I'm willing to give it a shot. I tried to get into Dexter and Californication, but can't seem to stay interested. I'm hoping there's a cool series out there that I missed within the last few years.

Before moving to the burbs a couple of months ago, my fiance and I always went to the Duke of Perth. Awesome all you can eat fish n chips deal on Friday (mon or wed too I think), decent beer selection, really good scotch, and a cool atmosphere. A good place to go with friends and talk, not be bombarded by loud music. Also, relatively few douchebags (normally none), which I find is the key to a good bar. Another good one with a great beer selection and some good food is Bar on Buena. Easily the best beer garden in the city is Moody's Pub. Even has parking. Really good burgers too. We stick to non-douchey, non-club like bars. We like to be able to sit at the bar or at a table and hear each other speak without having to yell. If that's your thing, the above three are really good options.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 01:33 PM) I just got around to seeing the film and I agree the visuals were the strongest part — as tends to be the case with Burton. All in all I thought it was an entertaining film. As far as the dance scene at the end, maybe the dance and music style were an odd selection intended to be strictly humorous, but the scene itself was not out of place. Hatter had been noted earlier at teh Tea Party to be teh best Futterwhaken (sp??) dancer in Underland (I love that name — nice touch by Burton), and Hatter made a point the of saying that he would not Futterwhaken until the Queen of Hearts was unthroned. So it made sense that there woudl be a Hatter dance scene there, even if that particular song and dance don't quite come off. No I get why the included it, it's just that the execution (from the dance itself, to the music...but mainly the music) was so bad and out of place.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 01:01 PM) I never realized you an actually compare the two players on statsheet http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?p...mp;p2=dee-brown not sure why you'd compare deron's last year with dee's last year. If you look at their stats for the NC run, Dee was better in basically everything but assists. My point was what CanofCorn just said, and what the Daily Illini's poll was about - collegiate career, not who's the best basketball player overall.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) Disagree from a non-Illinois fan perspective. Deron Williams was the reason that team was good. Dee Brown had a rep that drove alot of fanfare, but Williams carried that team. I guess me and the national college basketball writers and coaches will agree to disagree.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 12:36 PM) Deron drove that team. Brown won the Big Ten player of the year and was first team all american that year. Deron didn't and was second team. I think Deron had an amazing 2nd half of that year, but Dee was still a better collegiate player. Edit: And the Sporting News had Dee Brown as the national player of the year.

Probably already been discussed, but thoughts on Burton's Alice In Wonderland? Cool visuals, but otherwise pretty meh IMO. Depp was mediocre at best (was the scottish accent to british accent to no accent at all on purpose?), Hellenah Bonham Carter just screamed the whole time, and the award for most awkward out of place scene in a movie goes to . TOTALLY out of place and weird. From a serious, ominous tone of music to funk tones from the 80's? Just brutal. Made my fiance and I cringe. VERY cool effects throughout though.

QUOTE (chw42 @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 11:33 AM) It's funny because I saw a whole ranking of the best Illini athletes on the Daily Illini a couple of months ago. Dee Brown was #1, I really don't know why when Deron Williams is one of the best players in the NBA right now. Maybe some people are bitter that Deron left after his junior year. I think it was best player during their college years. Dee Brown was a better college player during his time at Illinois. Deron had the body size and potential.

I'm very torn about Reddick. We already picked up one Dookie this summer, but 2? Ugh.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2010 -> 09:31 AM) As I said when we first broached the subject...I think the only thing that would prevent them from 70 is the fact that they don't have anyone to push them past 60 wins. Esp. with Kobe's finger and Bynum's knee, the Magic aren't going to push well past 60, the Lakers won't, the Celtics won't, the Bulls won't, the Hawks won't. They'll have home court wrapped up by 70 or so games left, and I think they'll probably default to resting their guys for 10+ games rather than pushing for 70. Or at least I guess I hope so. I have two concerns for that team which makes me hesitant to believe that they're outright favorites to win the title or even favored to win 70+ games: (1) how long will it take for them to figure out the best way to play together, and how exactly are they going to play? As much as the NBA is about superstars, it's not streetball. There's still a team aspect to the game, which is one reason Lebron's teams haven’t won. A spread em out and let one guy try and dominate doesn't work. The main 3 are going to have to figure out who's going to take the shots and how many they get. People seem to think that'll be easy, but at least with Wade and Lebron, that's not how they've played the last 6 years. And really this is the main reason why I don't think you can say Lebron + s***ty team = 60 wins, therefore Lebron plus 2 other guys = 82 wins. Lebron's game is to drive and get hacked or drive and get fouled. It's that 1 on 5 mentality. Same with Wade. None of these guys are deadly shooters. So I guess I just don't see the automatic greatness here. Their games don't really complement each other (a point Rick Barry has been advocating for a week now). The Bulls 72 win team had greatness in different areas - MJ was all around offense, Pippen was lock down defender and a guy that could finish around the rim, Rodman gave you the rebounding and garbage buckets, and Kukoc/Kerr/Harper were the shooters. You could beat them in one aspect of the game, and they’d adjust and beat you in another. That’s why they were nearly unbeatable. So far on Miami you've got two all around great offensive players, and one really good perimeter big guy. You don’t have the rebounding, you don’t have the interior presence (at all, we’ll see who they end up with) and they don’t have any shooters. This could all change in a few weeks as he fills out the roster, but I’m just not seeing anyone out there that’s going to be on those same levels. I see two guys that have the same game and a perimeter-oriented big man. I still think they’re missing some pieces. (2) Who plays defense? So they score 100 a night, but what happens when they go up against teams that have solid offenses that can also score? Bosh is weak, and neither Lebron or Wade are lock-down defenders. I dunno, is it possible? Sure. But I think they still have a lot of questions to answer. I think it’ll be a great experiment for the future – can you amass lots of talent, even if it’s the same type of talent, and still win? Or is there a formula of championship teams that require you to have greatness in all aspects of the game?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 10:12 PM) And yet people are still watching it... It's fun to watch a train wreck. Faster decline in status in the last year? Tiger or Lebron? I'm going with Lebron. He's gone from a very likable guy that a lot of people rooted for to one of the biggest villains in sports.

QUOTE (beckham15 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 10:04 PM) i just saw the intro of the miami thrice and they all look like jackasses i just watched that too. Keep slapping Cleveland fans in the face Lebron.... geez. I can't believe he didn't at least give a shout out or something. Obviously he's there to celebrate with Heat fans, but come on. 3/4 of the country is ripping you a new one and you keep saying crap like "it feels right." Not an ounce of remorse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 09:30 PM) The concept that this team would struggle to fill the role player spots was silly. I think the argument was GOOD role players. I don't think any of those guys are GOOD. Miller on the other hand would be a good get if he's willing to take a lot less money.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 12:19 PM) huh!?! i'm saying certain aspects of science require "belief." I agree there's a method, but sometimes the method just gets you to hypothesis that you believe to be true, despite not being 100% sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 10:11 AM) Science is a process or a method, not something to have "faith" in. what? a scientist has "faith" that his/her hypothesis is correct, despite the fact that it could be proven incorrect. Science might be more "factual" than spiritual belief, but at least with some aspects of sciene, it's still believing in something that cannot be proven.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 08:16 AM) The only way to make that point is to ignore decades of what creationism has stood for. It means individual species specially created, perhaps within the last 6000-10000 years, no macroevolution, things created pretty much as they are now. That's a very far leap from theistic evolution, which posits evolution as scientists understand it as a 'tool' for God. eg Ken Miller vs. Ken Ham. I think you're only using one definition of creationism. Perhaps some believe that the elements of life were created (and didn't just exist out of thin nothingness) and evolution took over from there. The Lisa Simpson Little House of Horrors theory of life if you will.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 09:57 AM) And me posting less because there isn't any point +1

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 11:52 AM) I would tend to agree that it didn't motivate the shooting, but it certainly motivates the reactions. The article wouldn't make an issue of it otherwise. Others in this thread wouldn't use it in their justification of the shooting. I think it is perfectly legitimate to say that race/immigrant status plays some role on how people view this issue. You don't need to be a KKK member to have race impact your judgments. This is bulls***. Just last week the chicagobreakingnews.com website had 2 stories about OLD black men shooting YOUNG black intruders. I think if anything it's the weak, defenseless old man taking on young criminals in an old school way. THAT's the catch to the story.

QUOTE (Palehosefan @ Jul 9, 2010 -> 11:47 AM) You are seriously comparing Cleveland to Chicago as a FA destination? If a FA passed up the offer to play with MJ, another would follow soon. Cleveland as a basketball organization has won SQUAT before LeBron came along, and couldn't get him enough help in his 7 years. Do I think Michael would have gone to the Magic? Who knows, maybe he would have retired again, or gone to play baseball earlier or joined the Bullets. You can unclench your butt cheeks about LeBron vs. Jordan. We all know MJ was the greatest. LeBron is one of the all-time greats as well. Will he catch Jordan? I doubt it, but I don't have any doubt he will go down at least in the category of Magic, Bird, Kobe etc on the 2nd tier. Did you watch the Bulls pre-1990? And you've clearly bought into the hype of a guy that hasn't won anything yet. Potential to be one of the greatest? Sure. But he hasn't shown jack s*** yet.