dlpin

and while Cleveland has a lot of money tied up in salaries, they still have most of its MLE available to sign anyone. One of the reasons Boston decided to sign Mikki Moore instead of waiting for Smith is because they knew they would not be able to match the Cavs offer anyways.

Well, at least in college his writing was so poor that he took oral examinations. That is why OSU was accused of academic misconduct. Unfortunately, as always, the standards to prove academic misconduct are so ridiculous that apparently offering star athletes individualized oral tests is not officially academic misconduct.

I think this goes beyond chemistry. It is about value to the investment. Imagine portland had the cap space and VC was a free agent. Would they pursue him? No. Which is why the deal doesnt make sense either. Would they be a better team right now with VC? Certainly. But they are not trying to win it all right now. I mean, if you will have to resign Roy, Aldridge, and a host of other youngsters in a season or two, which will likely put you way over the luxury tax, what would you rather do? See 14 million get off the books this summer, along with all the tax implications (which puts its cost at way more than that), or get an additional 33 million dollars in obligations over the next two seasons just to have a slumping 32 year old playing with a team way too young? Being rich doesnt mean you throw money away.

The thing is, all that other stuff went on before they were negotiating with Minnesota. And while a lot of of it was the owner being cheap, when the owner did allow them to spend more money they messed up with the Shaq trade. Now, the shaq trade in itself wasnt terrible given the lockerroom problems between amare and marion, but when you look at the repercussions of it, it was pretty bad. Basically, now they are shopping amare around because they want to avoid the luxury tax and shaq is signed for a pretty big contract and is basically unmovable. There were even talks of bringin Marion back in a trade for Amare. It is clear they had no plan. I understand wanting to keep the young hotshot. But I cant understand wanting to keep the young hotshot when you were trying to build a contender on the cheap centered around a 34 year old PG and 30 something role players and an understanding that the owner would spend a bit more for one or two years but not on the long run. So much of this stuff contradicted itself that it is clear that this is an organization with a multiple personality disorder. A line up of Nash, Hill, Marion, KG and Diaw would have been much better, and given them more financial flexibility to boot, as at the time marion and KG had just 2 years remaining on their contracts.

gotta love the Phoenix front office. Looking exclusively at the last year and a half, has anyone made such a series of bad moves? Refused to sign Tom Thibodeau as an assistant because they wanted to focus on O instead of D. Then, when they were the clear frontrunners for KG, they don't go through with the trade because they didnt want to include Amare. Then they get desperate and get Shaq, putting them in a financial bind. During the summer, with all reports of Thibodeau dying to get the Phoenix position, they get a guy with a 71-93 record, who they fire 4 months later. And now they are desperately shopping amare around, trying to get 60 cents on the dollar. They could have had Rondo, KG, Marion's huge expiring deal to trade around, etc, etc. and they lost it all being cheap, dumb, or both.

In the first round most people needed quite a few tries. And Nate Robinson's second dunk was just about the lamest dunk ive ever seen in a slam dunk contest. It was the type of dunk me and my friends used to do in gym class, and he still needed a second try. Even Rudy's first dunk was better than any that JR Smith did. By the look in their faces, Smith and Rudy knew ahead of time that there was no way that they would make the second round, and given all the props there, the lame 50s Howard got, and how fast nate left to change his clothes, I think that is quite probable.

Nate Robinson was great in the second round. But I saw nothing that really impressed me from Howard, and the first round was obviously rigged, especially with all the props ready. The best dunk was robinson's 2nd, and the 2nd best dunk was fernandez's

That is because he traded away most of his 1st round picks. Heck, the second overall pick in 2006 (Shelden's draft) and the 9th overall pick in 2007 were New York's, but he had traded those away in 2005 for Eddy Curry!

Oops, I said Chris Ford in my post, but I meant Chris Wallace. I think he is the only one that comes close to Isiah Thomas, although Isiah Thomas is still the worst ever. When you are given free reign over things and the biggest budget in the league and you fail to make the playoffs in what was a pathetic eastern conference, there is no dispute. For fun, here is a list of transactions: http://hoopshype.com/general_managers/chris_wallace.htm highlights: Traded center Andrew DeClercq and a 1999 first-round pick (ended up being Andre Miller) to the Cleveland Cavaliers for center Vitaly Potapenko Selected forward Jerome Moiso (11th overall pick). Traded guards Randy Brown, Joe Johnson, Milt Palacio and a first-round draft pick to the Phoenix Suns for guard Tony Delk and forward Rodney Rogers. (JJ was included because he wanted to keep Kendrick Brown) Traded guards Kenny Anderson and Joseph Forte and center Vitaly Potapenko to the Seattle SuperSonics for forward Vin Baker and guard Shammond Williams. Traded forward Pau Gasol to the Los Angeles Lakers for guards Aaron McKie and Javaris Crittenton, forward Kwame Brown, the draft rights to center Marc Gasol, first-round picks in 2008 and 2010 and cash to the Memphis Grizzlies for forward Pau Gasol. http://hoopshype.com/general_managers/isiah_thomas.htm I wont even post the highlights, since it would be too long. Worst GM ever, by a very wide margin.

I don't think anyone can come even close to Isiah Thomas and Chris Ford when discussing who is the worst GM.

for me, its : part 2 1 4 6 5 3 freddy vs jason 7 9 X jason goes to hell 2 was really my favorite. There was a lot more suspense than some of the other ones.

yes, a lot of teams will overpay. However, it wont be a big deal, or anything we haven't seen before. We just have to remember 2000, when Jason Kidd, Tim Duncan, Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady and others were free agents. Some, like Austin Croshere, were ridiculously overpaid. Others werent... every once in a while we get stuff like this.

another BIG difference in rules is that new circle under the basket where no offensive fouls are called. That is one of the reasons you dont see as many in your face dunks anymore, with actual contact and all that. this is a good video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du-C-TvHqzA

If there is anyone who could stop lebron form driving, it would be Jordan. He had the lateral mobility (and then some) needed to stay in front of Lebron. That is precisely my point when I compared the two. Jordan had a complete game. Even when all he had alongside him was a third year Pippen, and teams were double and triple teaming him, he still shot 50% from the field. And this in an era where you could hand check your opponent at will, and there was no def. 3 second. So the rules made it much harder on driving to the paint, and he still was awesome against some of the best teams ever. People tried putting bigger guys on him, and he drove past them, and then they tried to put smaller guys on him to prevent him from driving, and he just shot over them. The only way Lebron would ever beat Jordan in a 1v1 or even 2v2 is if he developed an outside shot, so he could shoot over Jordan, or if he developed a post game, so he could post up Jordan. He hasnt developed either. I just cant imagine Lebron beating MJ off the dribble. He couldnt do it last year against Posey, and the year before against Bowen. If he ever got a jumpshot or a post game, watch out. But until then, there is a reason one averaged close to 50% in the playoffs and the other 41. Size is unrelated to being able to drive inside.

MJ, by far. Is Lebron incredibly impressive? Yes. Certainly the best or close to the best combination of physical skills the game has ever seen. A freak a la magic johnson. But the competitive drive of MJ is miles ahead of either. What I mean by this is that MJ always worked extremely hard on his game. He evolved from this great athlete to a great basketball player. People are denying him the lane? He worked on his jumpshot and his 3 pt shot. People are putting smaller, quicker guys who can stay with him? He developed a very good post game that killed GP and so on. After a while, there wasnt a single weak spot in his game. And this not to mention his intensity on defense. Lebron, however, has only now started showing a few signs of that. And the best evidence of this is his playoff stats. MJ shot over 48%, including over 33% from 3pt, and just 3 turn overs. Lebron's playoff career averages are not only much worse, but have been deteriorating as teams figure him out. Declining FG % (under 42% the last 2 years), declingin 3pt shooting, increasing turnovers (over 4 per game last playoffs). And even this season, with all the additional help, improved work ethic and all, his eFG% from jumpshots is still around the 40% mark. If he ever becomes like MJ, a competitive nut that works relentlessly on his short comings, then yeah I could see him moving ahead. Until then, he will constantly be eliminated in the playoffs against good defense teams that close the lane and dare him to beat them from the outside, like the spurs and the celtics did to great effect. Even in a pick up game that would be the case. Maybe even more, considering how good a defender MJ was. Pick MJ, set him on Lebron, watch Lebron brick from afar. And all of this without even going into the discussion related to the rules in place in the different eras. I would love to see MJ in his prime with all the hand checking rules and defensive 3 second rules we have today. Edit: not to forget MJ's infamous off-season pick up games that he organized, where people said he was as competitive as during the regular season.

his dui? yeah, that is kind of a big deal. Pot in a private home? No, not so much. And it is a waste of money to try to prosecute him. And pointless as well, because as stated, he was at a private place, and, more importantly, what is the fear here? That he will not achieve his potential? that this will hurt his career? As far as being treated better or worse than other celebrities, that is beside the point. The fact is that compared to the average citizen, he is being treated much harsher, and that should be the golden standard. If anyone of the members of this forum posted a pic of themselves using a bong, I doubt the police would waste even a nano second investigating it. Yeah, sure, he is a celebrity and some claim a role model. But that misses the point that he was doing this in private. Now, with regards to whether society thinks that infrequent use of marijuana is a big deal or not, what is publicly said is often at odds with behavior. Slightly over 42% of adults have admitted using marijuana at some point in their lives. And that is just the people who have used it. I have never used it and think that it's no big deal, at least not compared to hard liquor and so on.

I don't think Dolfan's post is about anyone DOING anything in public. It is more about the extreme amount of regulations on nudity being displayed. I.e., all the regulations on nudity on TV, on the movies, etc. It becomes taboo. Of course, I am not advocating full on porn in the afternoons, but all these regulations that prohibit any amount of nudity to be displayed even late night, for example, or that makes any innocent movie with a boob or two R rated, end up creating this taboo that makes nudity something "dirty." That is why things like the girls gone wild series are not at all popular in Europe. Breasts have become somewhat de-sexualized over there. You go to a beach and there will be tons of topless women of all shapes and sizes, and no one ogles them because it is so natural. That, of course, leads to a lot less feelings of sexual inadequacy. And it is not just Europe vs the US, and it is not just nudity. Before the drinking age was raised to 21 nationally, states with lower drinking ages had fewer cases of alcohol abuse per capita. And none of this means that people would be forced to put up with it. In Europe you can still go to beaches where there are fewer or none topless women. You can still control what your kids watch, etc. But when government is there enforcing all these sorts of regulations, it creates a situation where everything becomes taboo, and therefore sexualized and enticing. Wet t-shirt contests, girls gone wild, silly movies where the only purpose is showing boobs, etc. are all less popular in Europe. And in turn the average age people become sexually active there is higher, the teenage pregnancy rate is lower, and the sexual assault rate is lower. People can still be as strict and moral raising their kids, but there is simply no big brother state determining what you can watch on tv at 1am in your home. In several aspects the European states are more intrusive, but this is one of the areas they are less intrusive and hands on, and I tend to agree with it.

I think it was wise. All the young talent in the world does not mean anything if the ownership is going to give them away for cash. They have one of the worst GMs, a stingy owner, and are always mentioned as one of 3 teams that are highly likely to move soon...

Finally someone who agrees with me on the dark knight. I thought batman begins was a much better movie. That whole thing about "the city needs a hero" with the DA went seriously overboard. The whole thing was so convoluted that distracted from what was a very solid storyline. No need to force two-face in there, no need for that whole fawning over how great a guy he was...

The oscars, or any other award, are basically a popularity contest among that certain industry. There was a time where it was all based on the technical aspects of a movie. Not technical in the technological sense, but in the sense of taking in just the basic elements of a film. That is, best picture was not necessarily the most fun or popular, but the one that combined excellent photography, script, directing and acting. The best examples were "one flew over a cuckoo's nest" over "jaws" and "annie hall" over star wars. Of course, the latter two were fun, popular movies that changed the industry, but from a technical standpoint, cuckoo's nest and annie hall had better overall acting and so on. But in those times it was expected to be like that. But starting in the mid 90s, I think the oscar voters tried to do everything at once. It lost all pretense of taking serious film-making matters into account and now it is kind of a mix of serious awards and trying to be hip. They vote now more for the things that will make headlines than anything. Like purposefully snubbing some just to make headlines (Jim Carey is the best example. The guy was phenomenal in trumans show and spotless mind), or getting carried away with a movie to try to break records and stuff. I still cannot understand the shakespeare in love oscars, when thin red line and private ryan were better movies in every single aspect (not only the "fun" part, but also acting, directing, etc). Or forrest gump over shawshank redemption. Nowadays, there are companies that specialize in winning oscars. They know which movie theaters the voters go to, they know which dates to release movies, etc. City of God, for example, was eligible for the oscars two straight years because of how miramax was able to bend the rules a bit. It got no attention the first time around, but in the second, it got 4 oscar nominations simply because miramax was better at marketing things for the oscars. Things have gotten so ridiculous that Jorge Drexler, a Uruguayan singer that is little known here in the US, was barred from performing his own song in the awards show. They thought it would be better if Antonio Banderas sang it instead!

In any given day, there are more people voluntarily in Manhattan than in several states put together. Do you think that people in charge of security should then just ignore that when making plans about security and so on and spend as much guarding a rural Wyoming town as they do Manhattan? A lot more people voluntarily fly out of Atlanta than Athens, do you think they should spend the same amount of TSA resources on security in Atlanta and in Athens? Keep in mind that I am not saying whether or not I or anyone else should celebrate this or that president. I didnt even watch the inauguration until just now and didnt really care for it. But when you have a record number of people and a record number of high level representatives from other nations in a tiny space, I would expect the security forces to adapt and spend a record amount of resources there.

I agree. Shaq being the extreme example. His whole shooting mechanics are completely flawed, his ball handling skills ditto, but he is such a force in the post that it didnt matter. Physical skill, strength and positioning made him what he is. But the same mechanics in a 6'10 220 body who is not as fast or agile and he doesnt even play college basketball.

I dont think you can be fundamentally bad in practices and good in games. But I do think that there are several players who do not give a damn about practice and do not really try or even pay attention but who are good during games. Iverson being the famous case.

the public cost not including security is about the same as it was in Bush's second inauguration. Including security of course it is more expensive, but there are significantly more people there as well. Does anyone think that spending on security when there are millions of people congregated in such a tiny area is frivolous or unwarranted?

How can you use this argument to defend the current system? I mean, how can you defend a system where a team has nothing to play for for over 1/3 of the regular season, so he loses a lot of games and still has homefield advantage over teams with much better records? Can you imagine a basketball season where a team could clinch a playoff spot and first round home field advantage with 30 games to go? I think at the very least the NFL should make seeding in the playoffs independent of division winners, even if division winners are still allowed in regardless of record. At best, they should go back to just 3 divisions per league and be done with it. Winning a four team division is not that big of a deal, specially given how unbalanced they are. Teams like the chargers and cardinals have a double advantage: they play weaker opponents and they have to win less games. As for excitement, a 3 division system would mean a whole lot less meaningless games. Besides, how many of you would watch pittsburgh vs arizona if it wasnt the superbowl? Id watch indy vs the dolphins, or indy vs NE even if it was just a regular season game.