ZoomSlowik

QUOTE(whitesox1976 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 03:21 AM) That is terrific!!! 2 million tickets sold and still a ways till the season starts. That's what happens when you win the World Series! I wonder if 3 million is a possibility? We've got 10 sellouts before the tickets even go on sale to the public. I think there's a chance. We're not going to have sub-20k games against the D-Rays on a Thursday afternoon dragging down the average either, since we already have somewhere around 21,000 season tickets sold.

I'd personally go with A-Rod, although Pujols is still a monster. Albert is probably going to give you something like a 125-42-115-5-.330 statline. While that's still very impressive, I don't think he'll do much more than that because the lineup around him keeps getting weaker. A-Rod has a higher ceiling in every statistical category except batting average. He's really only had one non-elite season in recent history, and even in that one he hit 36 homers with 28 steals and decent production in the other categories. I expect them to have similar run totals, Albert to have a better batting average, and A-Rod to finish with more RBI, steals, and probably more homeruns. Plus he plays at a thinner position and is surrounded by a lineup that will help his numbers. A-Rod could easily put up a 120-45-130-15-.310 statline, which will probably help you a bit more.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 02:36 AM) Hmm...I don't know. I know there's a big ten bias on here, but I could see a few bottom-half BE teams possibly competing for a league title in the big ten... Louisville and Notre Dame are better than your average dog teams, but I still don't think they're league champ material in the Big Ten (maybe in the PAC 10, but that's another story). Those teams both have their problems, and Louisville still would have been battling injuries most of the year. Even taking that into account, there are still some pretty bad teams in the conference like South Florida, DePaul, St. Johns (although they did come up with two fairly big wins), Providence, and frankly Rutgers isn't that good (Douby is a stud though). I don't think any of those teams are any better than Penn State or NU.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 01:35 AM) His percentage has been up all season long. And I'm not saying that Hinrich isn't the better player now, but he is not worth giving up Gordon, 2 first round picks, and Chandler for. That's simply overrating Hinrich big time. How has his percentage been up all season? He shot under 38% from the field for the first two months. That's pretty pathetic. And I'm supposed to believe he's this great shooting guard because of a month and a half of good play? Come on. Even at his current 42.1% for the season, that doesn't really make up for his other deficiencies as much as you would like to think (unless he keeps averaging 20 points per game for long stretches, which I personally doubt will happen). You're twisting the question. The equation is not Gordon, Chandler, and two picks versus Hinrich, it's versus Hinrich and the Knick's pick. If it's in the top 2, which it looks like it will be, that pick is worth considerably more than the other two picks. There's a big difference between LaMarcus Aldridge and Rudy Gay versus the rest of this draft class. I also should have made this next comment earlier, but I didn't think of it. Because of league rules, it couldn't just be Hinrich and the pick for O'Neal. I forgot the exact percentage since they recently changed it, but there can only be so much difference in salary between the players involved. O'Neal is making over $18 mil per season, Hinrich is making under $3 mil per season. We would have to throw in another significant contract anyways, and the only one we have past this season is Chandler (or I suppose several smaller contracts, but Indiana probably wouldn't want a 4-1 deal). We might have had to throw him in on the deal anyways. Hinrich might be a pretty solid PG that I and others like, but we're talking about trading for an All-star PF/C that is conservatively a top 20 player in the league.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:33 AM) Gordon's shot selection has vastly improved, he shoots a pretty damn good percentage, his penetration is better and so are his handles. They're even starting to use him at PG a little right now. He even had 6 assists tonight. Gordon simply gets severely underrated around here. Also, Hinrich has never shot a good percentage in his career. It's not that he has a lack of a big man, it's that he's just a bad shooter, period. And I don't want to hear crap that Eddy isn't a post inside presence because he does draw double teams. Hinrich is vastly overrated around here. I guess as long as you try, you get a pass by the fans. Of late, yes, his percentage is a bit better. He still turns it over a fairly good amount for a non-primary ball handler, and his assists aren't exactly piling up. I guess we're just supposed to give him a pass for those first two months though, apparently we're not supposed to count those even though the NBA does. Two bad months followed by two good months doesn't equal massive steps forward. As I said, if he does it for another two months, maybe I'll start to consider him a more legit option as our SG of the future, but not yet. I heard the same crap about Curry with the way he finished the season two years ago, and a year later he's overpaid and on a last place team. The same thing was said about Chandler, and he obviously took a step back to start the year. It's not necessarily a sign of progress. More likely it's a sign of inconsistency resulting from a lack of experience. Hinrich might not be an elite shooter, but Gordon isn't exactly smoking him this year (41.7 to 40.4), or last year (41.1 to 39.7). I'm supposed to get excited over about one more made shot out of 100? Hinrich is also a much better passer, turns it over at about the same frequency even tough he's the primary ballhandler, and still produces a similar point total while taking fewer shots. On top of that, he's an above average defender as opposed to a liability. You're getting all giddy about 6 assists from Gordon when Hinrich averages more than that. Hinrich is definitely an above average PG, you can't say the same about Gordon at SG at this point in his career. As for Curry, he was a decent post option, but he was not an elite scorer that people consistently game plan against. I don't recall him getting constant double teams, and he frequently got most of his points in the first quarter while not doing much in the second half. O'Neal would be a proven All-star that has averaged 20 points per game for the last 4 years. There's a bit of a difference. The latter is a lot more likely to create some more open looks for Hinrich than the former, and the improved rebounding and shot blocking could lead to a few more transition opportunities. He likely wouldn't become a great shooter, but he has been getting a little better every year.

QUOTE(Jordan4life_2006 @ Feb 17, 2006 -> 12:17 AM) I'm assuming you haven't watched much of Ben Gordon of late. He did a lot of the same things in spurts last year too. If he's still doing this in March and April, I might reconsider. Until then, it's still just a decent run in my book. Plus he's probably not going to have too many 20 shot plus games if we add O'Neal.

On further analysis, the only real SG of any note that it appears we could get in FA this year is Bonzi Wells, who isn't exactly a guy I would really want. I suppose we could add Bobby Jackson and go with a multi-combo guard approach, although that doesn't really solve the size issue. I still think Hinrich/Aldridge is going to give us a better chance to win than Gordon/Chandler/Williams. Unless he steps up a bit Gordon is starting to move towards Jamal Crawford territory.

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 04:18 PM) Zoom, I changed my Yahoo name just to let you know. It's [email protected]. Honestly, I don't see how that affects anything. I've been in/run a couple of soxtalk leagues on a yahoo ID other than my main one. I guess I know now though, so that's one less issue when I actually get off my ass and set up the league (soon, I gotta decide what I'm going to do with the rest of the roster).

QUOTE(nitetrain8601 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 10:42 PM) I think you simply are overrating Hinrich in this case then. You're willing to give up our starting SG(who's shown progression so far), our only decent big man, and 2 first round picks for JO, but not Hinrich and the Knicks pick? Let's look at the lineups in comparisons. PG-Chris Duhon SG-Ben Gordon SF-Luol Deng PF-Jermaine O'Neal C-Tyson Chandler 1st round pick(ours) Andres Nocioni Othella Harrington Darius Songalia Jannero Pargo Eddie Basden Eric Piatowski or PG-Kirk Hinrich SG-?? SF-Luol Deng PF-Jermaine O'Neal C-Othella Harrington 1st round pick(though I don't ever think the Pacers would ever deal JO for a non-top 3 pick if picks are involved) Nocioni Songalia Pargo Piatowski Badsen I prefer the first team much much more. Hinrich is going to cost you alot in terms of cash which means little flexibility. I rather keep the cheaper and efficient Duhon and most of our starting lineup. I think that's another need this team needs. Continual development of chemistry. We can't keep drastically changing starting lineups from year to year. I think you're overrating Gordon more than anything. He's undersized, is a suspect ballhandler, has no sense of shot selection, and is rather inconsistent on top of that. I'd personally rather hang onto a 14 point per game scorer that can run an offense and pass the ball fairly effectively than a 16 point per game scorer that offers nothing else. How exactly has Gordon developed anyways? He's almost exactly the same in every statistical area of his game, and fewer of his exploits are coming in crunch time this year. If anything I'd say he's stayed the same or regressed. Hinrich's only real flaw is his shooting percentage, and that could go up with a real post threat on the team. I'd rather have Hinrich more than Duhon too, at least as a starter. I just don't think Chris can be a starting PG on a good team, while I think Hinrich can. Chris is just too suspect as a scoring option. We could still conceivably start those two anyways. There's a very big difference in the value of the two picks too, depending on where the Knicks end up. You're talking about a suspect big man that can't play center like Al Horford or Shelden Williams with our pick as opposed to a potential star like Aldridge. One of those guys is a legit starter as a rookie, the others aren't. If we can't get Aldridge with their pick, then it's another story. But a late lotto pick this year and probably a mid-first rounder next year isn't all that much to give up when compared with a top 5 pick that could net a promising big man. Also, the financial flexibilty is pretty much a push when comparing the two deals. You factor in the difference between Hinrich and Duhon's salaries without factoring in the difference between Chandler's and Aldridge's. If anything, you save money by dealing Chandler instead. We can then add a SG that isn't undersized that can actually play some defense. The way you want to frame the question, trading Hinrich is better. But if you consider that the only way we could get Aldridge is with the Knick's pick, and that we'd obviously be adding another guard if Gordon was dealt, then it's another story. Othella Harrington clearly wouldn't be our starting center either, Aldridge would be ahead of him. However, this is all mute if it looks like we won't get Aldridge with the Knick's pick. In that case, I don't have a problem trading that pick. Regardless of that, I'd still rather keep Hinrich than Gordon. There's only one successful SG I can think of that is under 6'4", and Gordon isn't in the same league as AI. You're also overrating the value of consistency in the starting lineup and trying to keep the team together. If we were actually close to winning something, I might agree. However, the team clearly isn't going anywhere, so that doesn't make any sense. So if we're going to make a major change to the lineup anyways, why wouldn't we get rid of the players that are generally causing us problems instead of one of the few things that is going right with this team? Does it really matter if we have 2 new starters or 3? I seriously doubt it.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:55 PM) Gtown has a very good shot imo. I also like Georgetown a lot, as I've said in the past. They play some pretty tough defense, and their offense is going to be tough to stop on short notice. The West Virginia game gave me some pause though. I really thought that the Hoyas were going to take down West Virginia in their second try, but instead the Mountaineers beat them by 13. It's conceivable that West Virginia can match up with them well defensively because they play virtually the same offense and that Hibbert only playing 12 minutes contributed, but I think the bigger concern is that their guards were brutal in that game. If they lose in the tourney, their backcourt is going to be the reason. They can be very effective, but they don't do it consistently. Cook, Wallace, and Owens all have good overall numbers, but they can't seem to consistently play well. It won't matter against a lot of teams because of their dominance up front, but if they run into someone that plays tough perimeter defense, or possibly a team with numerous players that can score from the perimeter, things could get interesting. Three of their loses are to West Virginia and Illinois, two teams that seem to fit that profile.

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 03:41 PM) That's because the Big Ten doesn't have any great teams, but rather a bunch of good ones, which is exactly why Illinois could go 5-0 or 1-4 in this stretch and neither would surprise me much. If any Big Ten teams make the Final Four, it would be a miracle. On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me all that much if the Big East got 3 teams in the Final Four. I'm not saying it will happen, but it's a real possibility. UConn would be considered a disappointment if they didn't, Nova has a decent shot (especially if by some miracle Sumpter is back), Georgetown has the size and talent to beat anyone in the country, Pitt plays some really good defense, and even though I don't like them, West Virginia is another team that can do it if they get some good matchups or shoot the lights out. They've got a few top end teams, but the bottom few are brutal.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 02:38 PM) Of course it is, just like for Dirk, although he can drive and has the ballhandling abilities of a point guard. Having a big man with outside shooting ability allows you to spread the floor better. Duncan can hit a jumper, but he's nowhere near as good an outside shooter as Dirk. He can probably hit the college 3's at an okay clip, but I doubt he could consistently go out much farther than that. Regardless, those are still two of the best players on the planet and are much better than anyone you see in college. I could still count the big men in college with range anywhere near an NBA 3 on one hand.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 01:23 PM) Well, just remember, Chris Paul wasn't the #1 pick last year either. Just because you don't have the #1 pick doens't mean you can't turn it into something solid. Right now it looks like the worst possible case scenario would mean that Knick pick will be top 5, and it has a very very high probability of being top 3. And if the Knicks stay in their current free-fall for much longer, it will have a good chance of being 1-2. It's also worth noting that right now the only team with a worse record than the Knicks is Charlotte, and Charlotte may well decide they're not in the market for another big guy this year, with Okafor, May, and Brezec all on their team (is Brezec a FA this year?). It's also possible that Okafor could come back sometime in March and push them ahead of the Knicks record. In some draft classes that is true, but not so much this year. There simply aren't many potential instant impact players (or future impact players for that matter), and the other ones are poor fits for the Bulls. Rudy Gay might be a stud, but we already have two fairly good SF's, and one of them is a potential star. I don't think Deng or Gay could play SG or PF, so that wouldn't work. Rodney Carney is similar to Gay. so that also won't work. The same is true for Adam Morrison, who I personally think is going to be a bust anyways. He's probably too slow to keep up with most NBA SF's and I'm not sure he can be a solid 3-point shooter in the NBA. Rajon Rondo is another guy that can probably be decent his first year, but the last thing we need is another 6'2" guard that probably is better at the 2. Reddick is the only other one that looks like he could be effective in his first year, and I'm not a fan of his either. He's another undersized SG with limited ball-handling and playmaking ability just like Gordon, only on top of that he's less athletic, isn't as good at creating his own shot, and will suffer in the NBA if he doesn't get all the calls like he does at Duke. I suppose they can take one of the foreign big men like Bagnani or Splitter, but they're kind of raw, Bagnani is more perimeter oriented, and Splitter has some buyout issues. Brandon Rush could be another interesting pick, but he probably isn't going to contribute right away. You also probably don't need a top 5 pick to get him, although he might not be there for our second pick. The only other guys I could possibly see as good fits for the Bulls are Shelden Williams, Paul Davis, Maurice Ager, Randy Foye, and Ronnie Brewer. Those guys are all less than inspiring, and we could probably get them with our own pick.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 12:27 PM) Right now I would be really angry if we had to give up that Kicks's pick, especially if it took us giving up Hinrich and all it got back was a guy who has had repeated injuries that have cost him a lot of games the last 2 seasons. I'd love it if we could somehow turn Gordon, Chandler, our pick, and our #1 next year into O'Neal, but that seems a little light for a player of his caliber. If we do the proposed trade, I think we move into the same territory as the Timberwolves and Garnett: simply not having enough players around the star to win big. Honestly, if after the lottery it doesn't look like we'd be able to get Aldridge with the Knick's pick, I'd be willing to deal it. We're not really going to get any immediate help with that pick unless we could get him.

I was just flipping through my new SI, and in the NBA mid-season section there was a picture of Jermaine O'Neal in a Bulls' jersey. Apparently, they were advocating that the Bulls trade Kirk Hinrich and the Knicks' pick for him. While getting O'Neal would be nice, I'm not sure I like that. For one, the Knicks' pick could net us LaMarcus Aldride, who could easily produce as well as Jermaine in two or three years at a much lower price. Second, Hinrich is one of the few players on the Bulls I'd actually like to see stay around. We'd almost certainly end up taking a guard with our own pick in the draft were that to happen, and this isn't the greatest group. That would leave us with a backcourt built around Duhon, Gordon, and the rookie, which isn't exactly stellar. Lastly, it seems that O'Neal has become fairly injury prone, since he is out for the season and was bothered by a foot problem most of last year. That's not exactly what you want to see when you're dealing your starting PG and a very high pick. While the move would net us a bonafide All-star, I'm not so sure it makes us all that much better. Is a lineup of Duhon, Gordon, Deng, O"Neal, and Chandler going to push us into contending status in the East? I personally don't think so. It's another story if we could somehow keep Hinrich, but I realize that would drastically reduce the chances of the trade happening (would they even want Hinrich? Tinsley is a fairly good PG in his own right, albiet he also has some injury problems).

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Feb 16, 2006 -> 11:06 AM) No it was in Iowa I think he was confused. You're commenting on MSU, pretty sure he is on an anti-Illini streak.

Izzy is definitely classic. I still think Nolan Ryan pounding on Robin Ventura is my favorite though. I like the one where Chan Ho Park tries to jump kick the guy too. I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't include Kyle Farnsworth body-slamming that guy from the Reds (Paul Wilson? Not sure).

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 11:38 PM) I'm starting to think the same thing. This team's all over the map. A lot depends on the matchups, whether those teams can get Augie and Brian in foul trouble, and overall how Dee shoots. I could see this team losing 2nd round or sneaking into the elite 8 if they play their absolute best. But a 2nd round exit is much more likely in my mind. I don't like the fact that they think they can just turn it on against a team like NW when they feel like it. That's not a good characteristic to have. I don't think they're totally without hope, but they need some good matchups make it out of the second round. Something like UCLA and West Virginia in their section of the bracket would be helpful, or maybe Tennessee. Frankly, I think they can give Memphis and Gonzaga a game too, maybe even Villanova, although it would be a stretch to pick them in any of those latter games. On the other hand, if they get a really tough matchup I could see them losing in the 1st round, but I'm not expecting that yet.

Man, who let a fire under Michigan? I thought Minnesota had a chance since Michigan was playing without some of its big guns, obviously I was wrong. The Wolverines still have some fairly solid players, but it's going to be tough for them to beat one of the teams in the upper half of the conference unless some of their players get healthy. Illinois looked brutal. There's no excuse for letting a Vedran-less NU team stay within 20. What's worse is that they got good games from McBride, Randle, and Carter and still failed to impress. That doesn't happen too often. I'm beginning to think that they aren't going to last long in the tourney.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 09:24 PM) Yes, Duncan can shoot from the outside, beyond the top of the key He's made 22 3's in his entire career. I'd say outside shooting isn't his strong suit. He can hit jumpers, but they're usually only out to about the elbow.

QUOTE(Felix @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 03:47 PM) So.. what are the odds Minnesota takes out Michigan tonight? I doubt it will happen, mainly because the game is in Michigan, but who knows. I doubted Minnesota would beat MSU and PSU too Any Big Ten team can beat Michigan if Harris and Abrams are in street clothes. Horton and Sims are good, and I kind of like Coleman, but that's just not enough firepower, especially considering how inconsistent the offensive production of the first two is.

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 03:35 PM) So if DJ White does not get injured, are we having any of these Davis discussions? That's a tough one to say. When they struggle, their problems seem to be in the backcourt, not up front. Maybe White gives them another solid scoring option and takes a little pressure off, but I'm not entirely sure they're at the top of the conference even if he is healthy.

QUOTE(Goldmember @ Feb 15, 2006 -> 12:21 PM) i have 2 2nds (baseball, football) & 1 3rd (football) and a 1st (football) from another username after one dumb year of having like 12-16 (can't remember exact # but somewhere between there) fantasy football teams. for that many leagues i created 3 extra usernames. can only remember the names and pw of 2 of those and haven't used them since nor do i plan on using them... I kind of did the same thing. I have 7 Yahoo ID's that I can remember, plus I think there are at least two more. For fantasy baseball I've had up to 20 teams at a time in the past, typically 12 tops for the other sports. Invariably I'd be inactive in about half of them after the first month or two of the season. I'm going to start cutting down to 8 tops with baseball and actually pay attention to all of them, and 4 tops for the other sports.

On my main ID I have 22 trophies from about 60 different eligible leagues (Which sucks, because IIRC I kicked some ass in those non-eligible leagues). Of those 10 are first place trophies (4 baseball, 2 football, 2 basketball, 2 college football picks). I also have 6 more 2nd place (3 baseball, 2 football, 1 basketball). I have way too many ID's to give you a full profile. Let's just say I spend a lot of time on fantasy sports, and I generally do pretty well.

Why can't we just let this thing die? Feel free to argue about it on your own time, but I'd appreciate it if you guys keep it off the signup board. I'll make sure the various parties are in different leagues.