Soxbadger

QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 09:14 PM) I would have much rather had Smith or Monk. Unfortunately, the Bulls have like 40 s***ty guards, so they think they're set. I just don't trust Markkanen to do anything but shoot 3's. No rim protection, lack of strength hurts him on both ends, not a lot of finishing in traffic. I'm agnostic about Fox. His speed and ballhandling gives him some upside, but I think it's really hard to play guards that can't shoot at all in the current NBA environment. He also needs to bulk up quite a bit. I'd have preferred Smith too Markkamen but when they traded for lavine and Dunn you knew they couldn't take another guard. Basically the extra guards in the trade forced the pick. Worst part is Im not sure dunn goes top 10 if he was in this draft.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 08:55 PM) I mean, as a fan of the White Sox, you don't see the benefit of getting off on the right foot with a rebuild? This was their only opportunity, and they seem to have completely blown it... 7 was not an ideal pick. I know zoom hates him but Markanen at least has upside. Had they kept the 16 maybe they can turn 7, 16 and something into Fox. But instead they have Dunn and are basically hoping that somehow last year was not indicative of his fulure performance. Personally just bummed we couldn't turn Butler into fox.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 08:34 PM) Leaf is who I wanted the Bulls to pick @ 16 (had we still had the pick). Is this Markanen (sp?) any good? Clearly a great shooter, which fits and seems like he has handles. Poor rebounder at this point and not a good defender (at least as of now). Seems like what we thought Niko was going to be (and a role that has upside). That said, only way I can see him being a game changing is if he goes full on Dirk (maybe he can). Yeah leaf was intwresting for middle of 1st. Still can't believe the bulls gave up a first and got no future 1sts. Probably because they wanted Dunn and feel he can be good. Sadness level rising.

Hard to believe people are paid millions of dollars to be this bad at their job. I get the idea, I just can't believe they couldn't have gotten better trash later on.

I just don't understand how the bulls had to give up 16. It'd be one thing if it was 5 and you got foxx, but 7 is a complete crap shoot in this draft.

Hahaha can't believe they gave up a pick. Just so horrible.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) Bulls should have moved Jimmy before Porzingis hit the market. #3 + Brown + Brooklyn pick and filler might have been doable. Maybe throw in the #16 and a pick swap for 2019? From all the rumors Celts were never putting BKN pick on the table for either Prozingis or Butler.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:29 PM) That would a good regulation to allow the states and the individual to have a say in their individual coverage. In my personal example, my insurance is through the state. My daughter is going to school in Colorado. We are in a tiered insurance program and being out of state she cannot get Tier 1 coverage even if the provider is covered as Tier 1. That's why there has to be some sort of "fairness" involved. Most people do not really have much choice when it comes to health insurance and while the ideas of marketplace etc are good in theory, they still had/have problems. Ultimately the problem is that insurance companies have far more money then regular people. And regular people are too fractured to get together to change things. Even if 99% of American's agree on healthcare, it doesnt matter because there are other issues involved when we vote and so we end up picking people who are going to do whats best for them, not necessarily what is best for everyone else. I really do believe that there is a workable solution, I just dont think its possible with our current style of govt. I think the best hope is that at some point Democrat and Republican parties splinter.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:12 PM) SB are you saying that health insurance companies want people to not be healthy? Are you saying the AHCA helps the health insurance industry? Are you opposed to the government giving them a bunch of money? I don't get your point. It seems like you're just trying to be righteous. While the Obama administration was driving the distance between the 1% and 99% the insurance companies were living it up. Check out the stock charts of Aetna, Cigna, Humana. Every single one of their stocks are 4-5x the price they were when Obama went into office. If you're against the evil insurance companies or whatever you're trying to project with your cheap questioning, why support the ACA? The ACA couldn't have made it easier for them. They were swimming in money from 2010 on. I bought Aetna's stock shortly after the ACA went into effect and when I sold it I doubled my money. Those evil 1%er's who owned Aetna did thing because of the legislation the Obama admin put forward. I actually have no idea what you are talking about here. I havent said anything about ACA or AHCA. It is a simple fundamental question. Do we believe that people should be guaranteed a minimum level of healthcare? The point about getting rich is that the govt can easily restrict premiums and could also review health insurance companies profit/losses to make sure that all parties benefit from the bargain. People's health is not a normal market.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 05:00 PM) 1.) A President doesn't pass laws and he can't "regulate" premiums a giant system with millions of factors. No one is arguing to the contrary. For your premium control idea, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened had President Obama interfered with the free market and skewed the supply and demand to an even greater extent but he didn't do that. He did promise lesser premiums for families though. That didn't happen either. Now it's the next administration's problem. 2.) Are you questioning the validity of the existence of the healthcare field? Smoke more weed Turtle! 1) I am not even sure how to answer this as the only relevant part is "free market." The problem with applying free market principals to insurance, is that insurance is already regulated and there is nothing close to a "free market" for insurance. And while I am likely the most adamant supporter of "free market" on this board, even I have to concede that something like "health insurance" shouldnt be guided by those ideas. That being said, do I believe if all regulations on insurance were removed that it could result in lower premiums? Absolutely, I think that if you removed the barriers of entry that you would get much more competitive rates. The problem is that is insurance really worth anything if the company who insures you does not have the reserves to pay out claims. I get where you think you are going with this, but I also believe that congress could have written a bill that would have ensured 1) Health Insurance providers can make a reasonable return and 2) people would not have to experience abnormal premium increase. 2) Dont worry Chibiusa, its okay to admit you were wrong and that I asked a question. Tell tale sign of someone stuck in a corner is trying to answer a question with a question. That being said, I do think as a society people have to ask what rights do people have to health care. Do all people in the US deserve some sort of guaranteed minimum level of healthcare? Its a straightforward question Chibiusa, either you believe people do or they dont. It has nothing to do with the healthcare field, no part of my statements have said that doctors income should be capped, that you cant have specialists who make millions a year etc. Insurance companies are doctors. Insurance companies are piles of money attempting to make more piles of money. I know you will never answer the question.

I know it wont happen, but a fair compromise for someone like SS is that they should be able to choose the state they work in. IE IF I work in IL and employer chooses FL, I can choose that my plans be governed by IL Law. If I work in FL and employer chooses IL, I could stay with IL or I could choose FL. That way the employee gets some protection.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 04:17 PM) 1.) So when Obama was still in office and everyone was 100% sure HRC was the heir to the presidency why were there estimates of the huge increases in premiums? Certainly the . probability of increases in premiums is increased by inaction in congress but this isn't something we didn't know was coming. Everyone knew once Obama left office premiums for ACA would skyrocket. 2.) That is not the question at all. It seems like you're just virtue signaling that you have incredibly moral beliefs. 1) Because the President doesnt pass laws. So unfortunately the President cant pass a law that would regulate premiums. But congress could have definitely passed a law that stated that insurance companies can only increase premiums x amount a year. It could be similar to rent control in San Fran. If you live in same unit your rent can only increase by X%. 2) It actually is a question. Just because you dont like the answer, doesnt mean its not a question.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 03:54 PM) Your comment was very vague so certainly there's plenty to elaborate - especially on a subject as expansive as health care. I can do the math on the percentages. I am just not sure what you're advocating for. It seems like you're advocating for the ACA while your primary concern is premium costs. The incredible increases in premiums are a huge problem and I am with you there. That being said, the ACA has giant premium increases this year (ex. ~43% increase estimated for ACA Silver Plan in Illinois) and significant increases next year. That's not even touching the dastardly effect of the ACA's high deductible plans. I guess I am just confused as to how you want lower premiums and ACA at the same time when ACA is the reason premiums are going to be skyrocketing regardless of whether ACA is kept, healthcare is in limbo, or the ACHA is adopted. I am in no way a fan of the AHCA plan, it just runs at odds to be a proponent of ACA and be upset premiums are ridiculous. The reason for the increase in premiums is because congress wont pass laws that restrict premiums. Of course insurance companies are going to do whatever they can to make the most money possible. The question is, do we as a society feel that people should be getting rich off the health of others?

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 03:58 PM) Wrong Frank Isola of the New York Daily News reported Thursday that the New York Knicks have asked the Boston Celtics for a hefty return in a potential trade for Kristaps Porzingis. According to Isola, the Knicks asked for the No. 3 overall pick in the 2017 NBA draft, the Brooklyn Nets' first-round pick in 2018 and forwards Jaylen Brown and Jae Crowder. Lol That is the Knicks offer, I said what the Celtics offer was. The Celtics (NOT KNICKS) offered #3, a player and a potential lottery pick they believe they can obtain in this draft. Maybe read the thread?

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 03:55 PM) I agree with you and I also agree that Fox isn't there at 7. Then again, everyone thought Dunn was going to be a stud last year and look at people's views of him this year. I didnt like Dunn But I think most of the time I dont like players so its easy to say that.

Fox is the guy I like. He just has the "other" factor that makes me feel like when he gets to the NBA he is going to get even better. Problem is that he is going to be tricky to get as I think you need the 4th pick, so even if the Bulls get #7 they have to figure out how to get #4. Are both bulls picks in this years draft enough? I think that requires Jackson to be picked #3 and then maybe Suns will be willing to move down.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 03:07 PM) The insider over at Real GM (who from past history seems to have very very legitimate sources) is indicating Bulls are interested in Fox (not a shocker) and they are still having conversations with Minny regarding Butler. His view is no deal would happen until we legitimately saw Fox there @ 7 (and just cause Fox is there at 7...it doesn't mean a deal happens...just means the Bulls might be more okay with potential deal). Supposedly Bulls front office is crazy about Fox (of course a year ago it was supposedly crazy over Dunn). Unfortunately I dont think Fox is there at 7. I think Fox goes 4/5. And I personally think people may look back at this draft and wonder how Fox fell. Its unfortunate that there is no way that the Sun/Bulls match at all. Because I think 4 is the pick you need to get Fox.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:55 PM) That list is a great reason why I've been against trading Butler for picks. You have a proven top 12 player in the league in his prime. He's done nothing but improve EVERY year he's been in the league. In an era when you need 3 of those guys to win a championship, why on earth give up 1?? That list is also why i'm against one of those draft wheel systems (where every team is just slotted into a draft position for the next 30 years, regardless of how they do in any given season). Look how much luck it takes to draft hall of fame players. You have to be picking high in that particular draft AND you have to make the right pick. That would be awful waiting the 5-6 years to get in that top 5 and then you end up with a really bad draft class to choose from. Normally I would agree, but Durant going to the Warriors really changed things. I dont like the Warriors and Im the last person who wants to write this, but right now their team is built in a way that it is hard for me to imagine the Bulls being able to compete with. Now Durant could get injured, etc, but at this time its just hard to see a way that the Bulls can beat the Warriors, especially when the warriors will bring in vet guys every year to patch holes. I wish this wasnt the case, but I do not really see how the Bulls can get 2 superstars to go with Butler. That being said, I am also not willing to give Butler away for free which is why it has to be something like Wiggins + 7 or #3+ BKN. Otherwise you might as well keep Butler and hope you can land a FA or get lucky in the draft and some other things go your way. Chisox, The Boston thing is what Ive been saying for the last few days. They are acting like these top picks are definite superstars, when the reality is that they are more likely to bust than be Butler/Porzingis. Which is why I cant believe that Boston wont just do what it takes to get Porzingis or Butler. Every time I look at the roster I feel like they are closer to a team that loses in the first round than a team that wins a Championship.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:40 PM) Jimmy Butler is an over the hill veteran? Have most posters looked back at the top 5 picks going back the last 10 years. If you exclude the #1 pick, you can count on 1 hand the number of players drafted who are at least as good, if not better then Butler. Even adding the #1 overall pick, that number doesn't increase much. In fact, it is eye opening how many top 5 picks end up being pretty garbage NBA players. I think Boston is insane for not leveraging their picks to better their team now. Unless of course Ainge truly doesn't believe in his team...in which case he should be trading Isiah Thomas and stockpiling everything. Ainge has gotten too cute and if he sticks with the status quo, he'll have wasted a golden opportunity to give Cleveland a run for its money. Would they be the sure fire favorites, no, but they'd be right there to go to the championships if Cleveland faltered. I meant Boston holding out on trading their picks to try and get Porzingis for the #3, a lottery pick in this years draft + a player. Instead of just offering #3 and a BKN pick and getting Porzingis for sure. Over the hill veterans was a reference to how Celtics acquired BKN picks in the first place.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:37 PM) Would anyone have interest in Aldridge? Dangle the 16 plus Mirotic? Sounds like that marriage is not going so well. Does it come with a time machine? Not getting into salaries, but 5 years ago this team would actually be interesting: C- Lopez PF- Aldridge SF- Butler SG- Wade PG - Rondo But I think that right now that roster is nothing more than middle of the road. The Bulls need to get a lot worse so that they can start getting top 5 picks.

QUOTE (SCCWS @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) So Boston seems to be offering the #3 tonight, a top 5 next year and Crowder. Knicks want Brown in addition who was #3 last year. I think 3 top 5 picks for him is too much so I think we see either Brown or next year's pick dropped and a 10-20 pick next year added. Thats not the offer. The offer is #3 tonight, a lottery pick tonight (probably 10-15 range) and another player.

QUOTE (shipps @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:15 PM) Ian Begley‏ @IanBegley Follow More Sources: BOS offered NYK its No. 3 pick, a player & an additional lottery pick that they think they can acquire tonight in a trade for KP. _________________________________________________________________________________ Adrian Wojnarowski‏Verified account @WojVerticalNBA 2m2 minutes ago More Minnesota continues to show interest in landing Paul George or Jimmy Butler, league sources tell @TheVertical. Cant wait for Boston to completely screw this all up. its like they forget that they got all of these picks by trading over the hill veterans.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 22, 2017 -> 02:09 PM) I loved him in college but he wasn't good last year. Yeah i dont remember why, but I really disliked him last year. I remember posting about the Bulls trading Butler and that if the T-Wolves took Dunn I did not want the 5th pick from them. In retrospect it looks like that draft may just turn out to be really bad. lol

Does anyone even like Dunn? Or is it just because he was picked high its worth the risk? The only reason Dunn would interest me is if I could convince someone higher to take Dunn + 7 so the Bulls could move up in the draft. Otherwise Id actually rather get 7 + Levine + Shabazz and more picks. I just feel like Dunn youre paying a premium for and Im not really a fan.

This is where Boston is getting to cute for their own good. At some point they need to cash in these picks on proven players. If they had waited on trading the #1 they probably could make the deal with Knicks much cheaper. If Im boston I try and give more picks to keep the BKN pick. But if its take that or no deal, Id just take the deal. (edit) Shipps, That is what I referring to yesterday. Boston fans were saying that Butler was worth late first round pick plus garbage.