buddha

has steve kerr talked to his brother in law about china yet? he hasnt said much about it in a while.

arent trey murphy and herb jones 3 and d guys?

i know this makes me a bad person and a hater, but seeing the leafs in last place just makes me happy.

if you are going to bet on duren's continued development and give him a big deal this summer, you better use those draft picks to find an athletic shooter who can take some of the load of cade. they cant continue to exist with zero spacing. ausar is great but cant shoot. holland tries hard but cant shoot. ivey means well but hasnt recovered from getting cheap shotted...and cant shoot. this is the group that was destined to be your core. you found your star in cade, now use your future picks to get a pippen to his jordan.

i dont really agree with any of this. 1) i disagree with the basic theory behind it, which appears to be that every team needs to be on an "equal playing field" or a "more equal playing field." i believe you should be rewarded for success and punished for failure, not the american sports way, which is to reward failure (the ability to get the best young talent at an extremely cheap price) and punish success (the more you spend on labor, the more you have to pay a penalty). so we will never agree because i value this more than you. 2) historically, teams that dont spend can also win. the royals won. the rays were in the world series. the brewers and cleveland won divisions. lower payroll teams can and DO compete. and win! the current system allows them to do so. it does a really good job of it, quite frankly. i dont care that small payroll teams dont win every year, or every other year, or even once every five years, but they DO WIN. And they are in the playoffs every season, winning divisions over much higher payroll teams. the yankees didnt win every year in the 80s, 90s, and 00s when they had the highest payroll and the dodgers likely wont win every single year either. and even if they did, i'd be fine with it, just like i'm fine woth baseball in the 1950s when the yankees DID almost win every year. 3) higher payroll teams can make up for mistakes easier. sure. they can sign big, fancy free agents like juan soto, alex bregman, aaron judge, gerrit cole, or xander bogaerts that supposedly guaranteed championships but turned out not to. 4) competing and not winning is ok. sport is fun because it's sport. and baseball is better when it has a villain to root against.

thomas is a 26 year old, in his prime, talented two way center with tons of compete signed to a very very team friendly deal. why would st louis trade him? and if they did, why would they trade him for nate danielson - a prospect rated by most in the back end of the top 100 prospects - and a pick likely to be in the 20s (if the wings got thomas)? i dont see it. you'd have to throw in genborg and/or mbn plus a pick to even consider it. this isnt quinn hughes, thomas is SIGNED. hughes was going to walk for nothing. you'd have to blow st louis away. if i'm st louis, i start the bidding at seider. detroit won't do that. but then i say edvinsson and danielson and a #1. that said, i hope youre right. i'd love to have thomas, even if that's not what detroit needs. detroit needs a top 4 defenseman more than it needs a center.

🤮

why? baseball owners are billionaires, why shouldnt they have to pay the product?

none of that is a problem for me. you have to pay talent, or replenish your talent by turning your expensive assets into less expensive but more valuable assets. you have almost the entire prime years of a player's development at below market cost, the fact that you have to pay them over market cost for their final years is not always a good thing, but is rather a choice. everyone cries about the dodgers, but what about the mets? they dont win ****. everyone cries about small markets but what about the padres? they spend money. small markets cant compete with small payrolls? what about the brewers? cleveland? detroit? so what that more teams with higher investment in a certain type of product (older declining players) win more games? i see no problem with that. its ALWAYS been that way in baseball. to me, it should be more like that in other sports too. invest in your product if you want to win, either through paying higher end talent higher end salaries, or investing in its development. simple. salary caps are ways for owners not to spend on their product. this american sports obsession with "every team having an equal chance to win a championship every year" is uniquely american and, in my opinion, unnecessary to enjoynent of the sport.

The east is so bad that this team might just survive any playoff series, but their flaws are well known, and the strategy to exploit them is too. the key to them winning in the playoffs will be cade's ability to shake double teams and a second scorer to emerge, and how do they cover for duncan robinson's defense? can tobias be a reliable #2 scorer every night? can cade carry them despite constant double teams and making him work on defense? can anyone else space the floor besides robinson? is jb the coach to come up with this plan? i dont know. they need a trade pretty badly, imo. ivey was supposed to be that guy but injuries have apparently sapped him of all his previous explosiveness. use those #1 picks and get something of value for this year. grab yourself a porter: michael or bobby will do. get a second point guard. do something!

better than nothing, but not good enough in the atlantic.

were doomed.

there's nothing to fix. baseball's system aint broken.

bring back the reserve clause! screw you, curt flood. you ruined everything.

oh no... someone check on 84.... "detroit police today arrested a man for suspected assault of hockey legend steve yzerman. the man was said to be aggressively repeatledly yelling "where's wallinder, steve! where's wallinder?" police are baffled.

All athletes in top sports leagues have great athleticism and/or great skill. except the wnba. that sucks.

i cant wait for this summer when half this board suddenly becomes an expert in a 4-3-2-1 formation, and the other half keeps posting how boring it is because no one ever scores.

soccer betting is massive. if you think there are betting scandals in america, i point you to asian betting houses placing millions of euros/yuan/yen/bhat on 3rd division filipino games. anyone who watched south korea in 2002 world cup will know first hand how money can buy referees. or juventus in italy being relegated to serie c for "irregularities" or barcelona putting former refs' consultancies on the payroll. fantasy soccer is also huge. its the biggest sport in the world.

you re-sign be chairot for toughness, you've spent the last 3 or 4 drafts talking about getting players who are hard to play against, tough, and able to work the corners, and then you give it all away to take the softest, least reliable, least playoff tested player you can find? why? WHY? to play devils advocate to myself, you think you'll never be able to sign a skilled player, ep40 will blossom surrounded by the comfort of swedish players in detroit (fact: vancouver has more swedes than detroit), you already have toughness and now you need skill.... i have a hard time talking myself into this.

i liked steve dangle's piece on "can someone pkease get berube a hat? please?"

the only scenario would be for bench scoring.

kcp may not be a hall of famer, but he is a solid nba player with a good career and certainly better than trey burke. dumars screwed up a ton, but at least he got that one right.

its a lot easier to score a run in a high level baseball game than it is to score a goal in a high level soccer game, therefore scoring a goal in soccer takes more skill than scoring a run in baseball and soccer players are more skilled than baseball players. #chaslogic

i remember analytics people going gaga for troy stecher. then he got traded for a 7th rounder.

The bulls just lost to the pacers for the THIRD TIME THIS SEASON.