illinilaw08

Also gave the green light to re-start the Bundesliga in less than 10 days. Germany has done a great job.

What are you arguing here? Where have I said Shaq is the best big of all time? Or even a good passing big? I've argued consistently that if you took 2000 Shaq, gave him a guy like 2016 Cavs Kyrie, and surrounded him with shooters, that team would compete for a title. I used the 2000 assist stats to show that Shaq - under the right circumstances - was a willing passer (ie, he'd be willing to pass out of double teams to open shooters). For me, this is less a referendum on Shaq, and instead an argument about whether you can build a contender in 2020 around a dominant big who doesn't shoot threes.

Did I say Shaq had to become the best passing big in NBA history? Edit: Also, calling Shaq a 50% shooter from 2 misstates the facts as well. He's shooting almost 60% from 2 in 2000 - not 50%. Also, if teams were comfortable giving up efficient looks at the rim in 2020, there would be no drive and kick game. Second edit: In 2000, Shaq averaged almost 4 assists a game (I was surprised to see that number). That's hardly a guy who wouldn't pass.

I don't think we're that far apart. Shaq would be a great player in today's NBA. We agree on that. The idea I initially responded to was this "Shaq would eat...but like that's fine. Their volume and percentage of threes make up for it." That idea seems to be - you can't win a title with a star who doesn't make 3s. And I just don't think that's true. Yes, you can't win a title with a team who doesn't make 3s - that I agree with. But in the modern NBA, teams wants shots at the rim and 3s. Shaq would be great in today's NBA - without adapting his game - at getting shots at the rim. There's no reason to think his FG% would slump - he's probably still shooting at least 58% from the floor on volume. If you surrounded 2000 Shaq with a host of shooters (granted, Shaq would have to be a better passer), and a second scorer, why can't that team win a title? It wouldn't beat the Curry/Klay/Durant Warriors who might be the greatest team of all-time - sure. But why isn't that team in the conversation for the 2019 title?

I'm not modernizing Shaq to today's game - I'm modernizing his teammates to today's game. Embiid averaged 18 attempts per game last year, and the Sixers were a Kawhi buzzer beater away from the Finals. I don't see why Shaq shooting 58% on 20 attempts/game (Shaq only averaged more than 20 attempts/game twice in his career) with a Kyrie type second guy (because you obviously can't win without a second guy), and the role players shooting 35% from 3 isn't a workable outcome offensively. But leaving that aside if Shaq modernized to today's game is shooting at a "much higher fg%"... is he shooting 68% from the floor on 15 shots/game)? How incredible is that guy? As far as the Nuggets go, I think you are underselling Jokic some. He's the best passing big the league has ever seen. His playoff numbers last year were great. He needs a second guy to be an All-NBA type to take some of the scoring load off of him (Murray making a leap is the most likely route, but MPJ could get there as well). Without that second guy, the Nuggets are the DRose Bulls at the moment. But Jokic can absolutely be the best guy on a team that wins the title.

If 2000 Shaq was in the NBA today, wouldn't a team just build around him the same way the Bucks built around Giannis? The modern NBA wants shots at the rim and 3s. Shaq would get what he wanted at the rim, and if he's surrounded by shooters, the Warriors volume advantage isn't 12 to 4. If you teleported the 2000 Lakers here, sure, I'd agree with you that the 2018 Warriors run them off the floor. But I don't think that's responsive to Jack's premise that you can't win with a dominant center because teams only shoot 3s. Shaq might struggle more defensively now because he wouldn't be able to switch, and teams would scheme to put him in pick and rolls. Lakers would have to scheme defensively with Shaq the way the Nuggets do with Jokic. That's the biggest issue IMO - would the Warriors have to adapt to Shaq (ie, forcing them to play a more traditional big defensively) or would Shaq have to adapt to the Warriors?

Draymond, clearly not Barkley. But he is an all-time great role player. Great defender (DPOY in 2016-17) who can guard pretty much every position. Really good passer which has been critical to making that Golden State offense go. His biggest downfall offensively is - 73 win season excluded - he hasn't been a great 3 point shooter, so he isn't much of a scorer. He's absolutely not Barkley - more of a Rodman, but more useful offensively. Great role player.

Plenty of 7 foot centers. They are just different. Offense has evolved away from prioritizing post ups - so you don't see as many possessions where you dump the ball to the big on the block and let them figure it out - but they still happen. Embiid, for example, averages over 8 post touches a game. Jokic is a hair under 7 feet, but Jokic averages 15 shots a game, and only about 3.5 are threes. Gobert doesn't shoot any threes. Zion was awesome in his 19 games last year while taking less than a 3 a game. You want bigs to protect the rim and to be efficient around the rim offensively. If your offense is built around an elite creator - like Harden or Giannis - yeah, you want your bigs to make 3s because it gives your best guys the most space possible to operate. But if your team's best offensive player is a big, you build your offense around their strengths (watch how the Nuggets use Jokic or the Sixers use Embiid). What has changed is what you need your role playing 7 footer to be able to do. Mason Plumlee on the Nuggets (I'm a Nuggets season ticket holder so these are easy examples for me) is a 6'11" role playing big who blocks shots, rebounds, and is athletic enough to switch onto to smaller guys defensively. He is also a pretty effective secondary playmaker (good ball handler and passer). He doesn't get post up opportunities. His points come on putbacks and rolls off the pick and roll. Role playing centers are more athletic and versatile than they used to be. But they are still frequently 7 feet tall.

If Kukoc was putting up 20/7/7 lines in his 25-30 seasons, he would have been a star. His defensive limitations would have made him one dimensional, sure. But there are plenty of examples of offensively gifted players being All-Stars, regardless of their limitations on the defensive end - both in the 90s and today. It's just an interesting alternative history where Kukoc lands on a team that wants him to be their primary creator offensively vs. landing on a team that needed him to be a spark off the bench. By the time Kukoc is out of Jordan and Pippen's shadows, he's 30.

I feel like Kukoc would have been a star back then if he landed somewhere other than Chicago. He was a perfect role player for those Bulls teams, but he spent his prime as a 6th man behind Jordan and Pippen. In his age 30 season in '98-99, he averaged 18.8 points, 7 rebounds and 5.3 assists a game.

Dune is great. The sequels, not so much. I recently read Dark Matter and Recursion by Blake Crouch which were both really fast and fun sci-fi reads.

Local government funds so many things that have a direct impact on the lives of the people who live there: libraries, rec centers, schools, fire, police, roads, plowing, etc. The idea that cities and states all over the country should file bankruptcy (and I'm a bankruptcy lawyer, for the record) rather than the feds stepping in with relief is insane and will cause significant harm. Particularly given that this was caused by a PANDEMIC not by mismanagement of funds.

Colorado going from ordering people to stay at home to recommending they stay at home, while also allowing non-essential businesses (salons, tattoo parlors) to re-open starting next week. The state is eyeing restaurants re-opening in some capacity in mid-May. Denver isn't set to re-open that quickly - but the state doesn't have the virus under control, and isn't close to the testing capacity they need. The infuriating thing here is that what the federal response should have been (paying people to stay home, and compensating businesses for being closed) hasn't been the reality - particularly on the small business side of things. One of my favorite small outdoor retailers here in Denver sent out an e-mail recently that they have been shut out of every source of federal aid - and without that aid there is huge pressure for them to be able to re-open to avoid shuttering permanently. Businesses shouldn't have to choose between public health and staying open. The federal government should be compensating them for keeping their doors closed to the benefit of public health.

Bulls fan and Nuggets season ticket holder here. Happy with this hire, and there's absolutely no way Karsinovas makes this move if he doesn't have control.

I can't even begin to understand the rationale for this. The playbook is aggressively test with rapid results to ensure that you are catching people who are asymptomatic. What - non-corrupt - motive could possibly back the feds ending support for testing sites?

https://gothamist.com/news/surge-number-new-yorkers-dying-home-officials-suspect-undercount-covid-19-related-deaths But then there's this. Per this article in the Gothamist, 200 people in NYC are dying at home every day - above the 20-25 that die on average. Those deaths - per the article - are not counted in the official death count. The infuriating thing here is that we still aren't even approaching widespread enough, and rapid enough, testing to have reliable data here.

My experience in Denver has been that produce is fine. The first weekend, onions, potatoes and garlic were completely wiped out, but since then, no issues. Non-perishables are still really, really picked over in stores. I haven't seen a can of black beans on a grocery shelf in like 3 weeks.

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/26/821457551/whats-inside-the-senate-s-2-trillion-coronavirus-aid-package Per NPR, the bill provides that employers can contribute up to $5,250 to employee student loan payments without those contributions being treated as income to the employee. That might be what is being referenced here.

This. We have a health crisis in this country. The response to the health crisis (which is necessary to save lives) is causing a financial crisis. The feds need to step up to provide a safety net that allows small businesses to survive and re-hire on the other side (grants, no interest loans, a complete halt to evictions, etc.). The feds need to provide direct stimulus to individuals - without delay to means test - to provide people with the resources to weather this storm without breaking quarantine and putting others at risk. The food supply chain will continue. There will still be gas at gas stations. But a lot of small businesses are going to suffer a lot of hurt, and a lot of workers are going to lose their jobs. And the way to deal with that is to have the feds provide the resources for those businesses to survive the next couple months without operating, and those workers to have the resources to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

Couple years back, when I lived in Indy, I left the windows open at the house when I went to work. We had several retired neighbors that were usually outside, so in the daylight, it was pretty low risk for any property crimes (though those definitely happened in the neighborhood I lived in at the time). Came home from work and the screen had been kicked in. Kindle, Wii and PS3 were gone. But the dog was fine, and neither of the cats had gotten out. It was a crime of opportunity - the window was open and no one was out, probably a kid (read, teenager), and they were probably in and out in under 5 minutes. An unfortunate lesson to learn - I definitely keep the windows closed and locked now when the house is empty - but it was just a couple minor electronics, and none of the animals were hurt.

But if the contention window opens in 2020, that adjustment time is costing the Sox in meaningful games. 2019 games are not meaningful, so if Robert scuffles early, who cares. If 2020 is "maybe we get lucky and contend for a Wild Card spot," sure, take service time into account. If 2020 is Sox are pushing for the division title, then Robert's adjustment period (if any) hurts that goal.

This. Eloy has had an adjustment period. Moncada had an adjustment period. If the Sox think that 2020 is a compete year, I'd rather they get Robert up here early so he's in the best position to succeed out of the gate in 2020. I thought they played the Eloy decision the right way. But expectations in 2019 vs. 2020 are starkly different.

You literally said that in the first response - and responding to that has been the crux of my side of our discussion here. I'm also not saying that Denver is running laps around the field. I'm saying that for Denver - what the team is now, and how they have historically done in free agency, I love their philosophy on Porter and Bol (full disclosure, I go to 10-15 Nuggets games a year). Jokic is a first team All-NBA candidate (he was first team this year) with a really unique skillset. Jamal Murray is really close to becoming that second star on a legit contender. They have a solid group of role players (though they have a decision to make on Milsap). Their question is - how do you get that third star. And their process in the draft the last two years - as a 46 win team in the lottery in the Porter draft, and as a team with no picks in the Bol draft - were smart gambles under the circumstances.

Right - the odds of either reaching their potential is longer than it was when they were incoming FR. But saying they don't have star potential anymore is just flat out incorrect. The risk at 14 (Porter) and 44 (Bol) on a good, young roster is smart business from the Nuggets IMO. ETA: Embiid had a stress fracture heading into the draft as well. There was a lot of risk in his profile when the Sixers drafted him. I'm not saying Bol or Porter will be stars. Just that saying they no longer have that potential ignores a pretty recent example of a guy hitting his ceiling after an injury caused a draft slide (and a guy who still manages his minutes because of injury).

Here's Woj on Porter from this week: Wojnarowski added, “All I’ve heard from Denver is Michael Porter Jr., every day in the gym, has been outstanding. They think he’s going to be really, really good. That team…If he helps that team next year, don’t forget about the Nuggets [as contenders]. They have depth and that’s a really good team.” https://www.nba.com/nuggets/news/espn-raves-about-mpj-20190617a I don't know how one can say neither Bol nor Porter have star potential anymore. That would be like saying Embiid didn't have star potential after his sit out year for the Sixers. Porter and Bol have longer odds of hitting than they did entering their FR year of college, but the star potential is still there for both. And the Nuggets' history of luring FAs is decidedly Bullsian. So that leaves find the guy in-house, or find the guy via trade - and having high upside assets certainly helps get a trade for a star done.