CubColtPacer

Brady's going to score a TD there with 56 seconds left and 1 timeout maybe 10-20% of the time? I can't imagine teams missing what is an extra point more often that that even with the extra pressure.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's. He has a lot of years ahead of him. He's on track is my point. So is Roethlisberger. I don't think he is though. The best finish he's had in QB rating is 7th-this year (I'm not tied to QB rating and prefer other statistics, but it's a decent aggregate statistics). He's never been one of the elite QB's in any single year. If you want to talk about leading his team to wins, the Giants have finished 8-8, 10-6, and 9-7 the last 3 years and he has a career 69-50 record. He has played well in the playoffs in two different years and has been a good QB otherwise. And he only has maybe 3-4 years left in his prime? He's been in the league for quite a while now. Meanwhile, Roethlisberger is over a year younger, has better statistics across the board, has won more, also has 2 SB titles, and has 2 finishes among the top 5 in QB ratings. He's better in every category than Eli.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's. Brees is MAYBE better than Eli?? Holy isht Brees is definitely better than Eli. I was trying to be as fair as Eli as I could by saying that Eli's case could be as good as Brees when they're done (Brees is a couple years older than Eli). I personally don't think they're on the same level, but I could see a reasonable argument being made for Eli that he could get close.

I'm not sure about that. How many QB's do you let in from this era? Brady and Peyton are locks. Roethlisberger has a better argument than Eli to be in the HOF at this moment. Brees has just as good of case and maybe better than Eli. Then you have the QB's just before this era (Favre, possibly Warner) and the guy who's on his way (Rodgers). That's a lot of QB's.

The NFL is expanding the number of Thursday night games starting in week 2. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7537208/nfl-adding-more-thursday-games-schedule-commissioner-roger-goodell-says Goodell also says that every team will have a night game at least once next year.

Yeah, when people talked about his star potential I was unsure about how he would ever be that good on the offensive end. But he has completely transformed his 3 point shot and is of course crazy athletic. The talk right now is which one would he be better for-the 3 point shootout or the Slam Dunk contest? It's possible the uncertainty might make him left out of both events, but he really should be in one of them. He's a little bit of a unique player. There are not many almost 6-10 shooting guards that their team puts on the elite point guards of the league in the 4th quarter to slow them down. He still needs to work on his dribbling for him to have any chance of being a superstar, but he is developing fast and of course at 21 years old still has a lot of time to develop. The Pacers being 16-6 with only 7 home games so far? That's an incredible start for them. Find a way to get past the next 6 of teams with winning records and the schedule really turns easy.

Yeah, they've gotten ridiculously lucky with the weather so far. It looks like today's the last day of that, although if the rain holds off the next two days won't be bad. Other than the weather, I'm not surprised at all that Indy is putting on a good show. Hosting big events is a big part of what the city is known for at this point. They don't have everything, but they use everything the city has to offer very well.

so, well below the midpoint, right? The midpoint was 10.225 million.

Apparently Garza's side didn't feel too strongly about their case either. That's a pretty fair deal. I'm glad the Cubs didn't push it all the way to the hearing even though they would have won.

If he's polished as the reports say he is, I don't think it is a huge concern. 3 full years in the minors, then the next year in the majors with the possibility of going to the minors if he needs it, and then the 5th year he has to stick. It's certainly not ideal, but it's not a bad scenario also unless he really isn't advanced for his age.

Pointing out that the effort was really poor tonight is not embarrassing themselves. overreacting and taking this as some sort of statement game is pretty embarrassing. the bulls were the second-best team in the east last season and improved in experience and talent-level this season. in a shortened, compressed season, this team's two biggest priorities are: get to the playoffs healthy, beat the heat. unless we're seriously suggesting that losing to the [expletive] sixers before the all-star break is some sort of harbinger of playoff doom, which is pretty silly, then the unmeasured reactions to tonight's loss are a little embarrassing. unless you don't value patience, maturity, or perspective. then yeah, perfectly appropriate. There's quite a bit of difference between treating it as a statement game and just saying that the Sixers will be a tough matchup/tough out for the Bulls. Which they will be-they're young, they're talented, and they are the type of team who seems to give the Bulls trouble (this is also their 3rd straight win over Chicago dating back to last year). They've had a really easy schedule with the home games and bad teams, but they also have the best point differential in basketball. Is Chicago better? Almost certainly yes, but it would still be a tough series. Barring a catastrophe though where Chicago slips to the 5th seed, Philly would be a 2nd round opponent. And in the East this year, you're just not likely to draw an easy 2nd round opponent.

It would be a lot easier to enjoy this season fully if IU had spaced out their big wins. Even going into the Big 10 season I was just rooting for Indiana to get to 9 Big 10 wins and make the tournament. The Ohio State and Michigan wins raised those expectations a little, but that's pretty much where their true talent level is. I'm sure there will be many stories about their collapse or other such things, but they really were just a team that overacheived for a few games and now has underacheived for a few games. They could go 10-8 or 8-10 depending on how the bounces fall, but they aren't a team who's good enough to go on the road to many places and win. It still is a significant improvement though and next year should still be very exciting.

I think you said cap hold, but are you meaning how much a player counts against the cap? Those are different concepts in the NBA. How much a player counts against the cap in the NBA is the actual amount the player is making that year, not the average. A cap hold is something the NBA uses to make sure teams don't abuse the right to sign their own free agents. They assign certain values to each potential free agent, and when you sign a free agent, you have to have enough space under the cap after accounting for those cap holds. The only way to get rid of the cap hold is to renounce the player, which means you don't have the ability to sign them while over the cap any longer. The NBA cap does fluctuate and is set at the beginning of each year. Rose's contract is set at a certain value regardless of league revenues. The cap will go up and down based on revenues, but Rose will get the 30% number calculated based on the cap when he signed the extension. So 5 years, about 94 million in this case. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. Hope that helps!

I think that's as much as the Red Sox are willing to add salary at this point (due to the luxury tax) and so are probably just throwing it out at all the best options left and hope somebody bites.

This one is the closest I've seen with D-Rose's contract included. http://www.hoopsworld.com/chicago-bulls-team-salary I've seen those numbers a couple places, but I don't think it's right. The numbers (even when you add in the 5th year) are about 6 million short of what his extension was reported to be. My guess is that they didn't calculate the new Derrick Rose rule correctly.

Yup, it was tough! :-) Seriously though, Smits was always a strange story. For like 4 years after he retired, teams were calling him up in March begging him to come back and play for them in the playoffs (I remember the Shaq/Kobe teams doing it a couple of times at least). But he never would because he enjoyed motorcross racing too much!

It just shows they haven't been under the cap for awhile. Cap holds only make a difference if you are under the cap, so there's no reason for teams over the cap to renounce anybody. Once you get under the cap then you renounce everybody who's piled up over the years. For example, the Pacers just got under the cap this year so this was their transaction list one day: The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Mike Dunleavy. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Tyus Edney. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to T.J. Ford. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Jeff Foster. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Tim Hardaway. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Lari Ketner. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Terry Mills. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Andre Owens. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Brent Scott. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Mate Skelin. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Rik Smits. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to Zan Tabak. The Indiana Pacers renounced their free agent exception rights to LaSalle Thompson. BTW, as SSR said, cap holds are why the Williams thing won't work. Williams will have a maximum cap hold, so they would have to renounce him and lose his Bird rights before signing another maximum player. That's the reason cap holds are there to make sure nobody can do something like that.

NBA is still a soft cap. As soon as Howard is on the team, the Bulls can sign him using their Bird rules (or they could do an extend and trade, but that has extra rules attached to it now). The issues are if the Bulls are willing to go into the luxury tax/how far are they willing to go, and what the rest of their plan is to build the team around the core of Rose/Howard with less picks and not much financial flexibility.

I'm assuming they are talking about Howard correct? Indirectly yes. Turkoglu seems to be the contract that the Magic are demanding anybody take as part of the Howard deal. That might depending on who was in the deal push the Bulls into the luxury tax this year, and if Howard stays they'll be struggling to stay under the luxury tax level in the future (amnestying Boozer would solve that, but then that's a lot of money that has to be paid to a player who's playing for another team).

Make it about the topic, not about me. And that foul was debatable. It wasn't a no doubt call. But if you look at where his right arm was, there clearly was contact.

ARE YOU [expletive] KIDDING ME?? I have very little caring about the outcome of this game. Just watched the play several times and paused the DVR at the crucial moment. Leonard's arm is horizontal and in contact with the Minnesota player as he's going up. They're going to call that most of the time.

That was a foul on Leonard. When the Minnesota player is starting to go up, Leonard's right arm is horizontal and comes into contact with the arm. Then as he continues to go up to shoot the crazy shot, Leonard's arms go straight up. I knew from the first replay when they said the foul was on Paul that it had to be on Leonard because of the initial hack.

Even though the Pacers won the first two matchups fairly easily, I don't feel that great about this matchup. George struggles most defensively with guys like Allen and one of these games both Pierce and Allen will play well. The Pacers have won the first two games by dominating the boards, but while they are a good rebounding team they are inconsistent with it.

I don't know what more it will take to make it a rivalry. The players don't seem to like each other. The fanbases don't seem to like each other. And the teams are not horribly mismatched anymore. The Bulls are still definitely better but the Pacers are coming fast, and both teams should continue to improve in the next couple years. If there was a playoff series between them, the Bulls would be favored but the Pacers would have a shot to actually win the series. Will it actually take the Pacers beating the Bulls in a playoff series to make it a rivalry? I think that's a pretty strict definition that would lead to pretty much no rivalries in the sport. Beat us in a playoff series. Have you ever done that? Until then youll be the team that gets up for us and never beats us when it matters. No, but IIRC they have only played 2 playoff series total. One where the Pacers were the 8 seed and decidedly mediocre, and the other one where they came the closest of any team ever of derailing Jordan's 6 titles. And that's fine if that's your definition of rivalry. But if two teams have to beat each other in a playoff series to be a true rivalry, there are going to be very, very few rivalries ever. Especially because in the NBA once one team starts to tank rivalries tend to go away.

I agree it's just the beginning stages of the rivalry process. But there isn't really any way at this point that it doesn't get heated. Neither team is going anywhere anytime soon, they play in the same division, and there is bad feelings between the players (I wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the next 2-3 years a fight breaks out in one of the games). And they match up really well against one another so most of the games are going to be close. It will probably grow even bigger than the middle 90's, where the Pacers were probably the team in all of basketball who won the most games against the Bulls, but I'm not sure that was a rivalry.