Magnetic Curses

for all the hand-wringing and bellyaching that was done by myself and others over corey patterson's development, or lack thereof, i've finally been able to make my piece with both he and dusty over the whole matter. dusty didn't ruin him, corey is what he is, at long last.

holy crap, dude, lighten up.

no, that's wrong. he has been worse than if the cubs had continued to play mostly reed johnson with a sprinkling of felix pie. so, ignoring the idea that his signing has taken developmental time away from felix pie, he has also been a detriment to the overall performance of the baseball team. wow, you must be very fun at parties. anyways, this might be the best thing to happen to pie. maybe lou will have no recourse but to play him, now. completely ignoring the fact that pie was rotting on the bench with reed johnson in the lineup.

why, because he hasn't hit in a handful of games? trust me, he'll be gone soon and he won't have caused even a particle of the damage that any of the guys you named did. i've heard of meatball hate, but this is ridiculous. actually it's ridiculous to keep calling people "meatballs." you supported the signing of edmonds; time to take your medicine. i don't get it. i wasn't telling anyone that this was for sure an awesome signing. i was saying that it was, at worst, a pointless signing. but you've decided to put words in my mouth, apparently. i'll not deny that one of my favorite pastimes is ridiculing the poor slobs who hate edmonds not for his offensive decline, but for his past with the cardinals and because he's apparently gay. if you hate him for one these meatball reasons, you're a meatball and you belong with da superfans. that's all.

I agree if the superstar PG can hit open jump shots. A SSPG is more like a stock and a SSPF is more like a bond to me, the PF can get you 17-21/8-11 but the PG could be the missing piece that makes it all work or shoot too much and screw up the system. The Bulls don't have a guy that can create his own shots, other than Gordon, though his size hampers him often times. Rose can create his own and can create shots for his teammates, especially slashers like Deng, Noah, Tyrus. Rose has the best court vision I may have ever seen. I don't think there's physically anything Beasley CAN'T do on the court. But he won't make his teammates better. oh, anybody that commands the attention that beasley does automatically makes his teammates better. i wouldn't say that rose's court vision is a huge strength, others might, but i don't. his athleticism and explosiveness are his strengths and that's what makes him a great college player. as far as court vision, he's not close to guys like jason kidd, deron williams, or steve nash.

nice job, gallagher. even though you doubtless received the benefit of a friendly wind, there was excellent movement on your pitches tonight. you looked like a very good pitcher.

why, because he hasn't hit in a handful of games? trust me, he'll be gone soon and he won't have caused even a particle of the damage that any of the guys you named did. i've heard of meatball hate, but this is ridiculous.

i don't know. who's the better pro? michael beasley or drew neitzel? neither are pros yet and they don't play the same position. but i'd wager that there are far more examples of successful, high major players that put up great stats in college and succeed in the nba than there are examples of players who put up good stats and succeed. furthermore, the lesser team argument doesn't hold water. beasley shot a high percentage, meaning he wasn't just running down the lane and throwing shots up because his teammates sucked, nor was he shooting every time down the court due to a lack of a better alternative. i don't see how the rebounds are really a function of his team being bad, either. his team wasn't a good shooting team, but it wasn't incredibly bad, at least not enough to be able to point to team shooting percentage and say "there are your rebounds". lastly, as i've said before, beasley got double and triple-teamed all year because his team was bad. he still managed to score a lot of points and shoot a high percentage while dominating the boards. i don't really know what there's not to like--or a reason to be praying for rose. Did you read the part of the post you didn't quote? I clearly said, I don't know how anyone can say one of Beasley/Rose is better than the other. i was just addressing the knocks on beasley in your post, i never said that you think rose is the better player.

well, the dodgers have always been lucky, and we have never ever been the benefactor of a single break, so i guess this works.

if we get wade, i don't think we'll be able to get the pick. they'll want more than that if we get their pick. although the prospect of picking up Gordon AND Beasley would be very intriguing for them. we could probably just send salary filler, which would have to include hinrich.

i think the illini will be more relevant than people expect, at least when big ten season rolls around.

Marbury is a stranger to playoff basketball because he's a complete idiot and doesn't know how to listen to coaching or make his teammates better. I don't see any of that in Rose. I think he's also more physically gifted. i think they're just about equal in terms of athleticism. anyone remember seeing marbury's trampoline dunk in college? i swear that's the highest i've seen anyone jump, ever.

i don't know. who's the better pro? michael beasley or drew neitzel? neither are pros yet and they don't play the same position. but i'd wager that there are far more examples of successful, high major players that put up great stats in college and succeed in the nba than there are examples of players who put up good stats and succeed. furthermore, the lesser team argument doesn't hold water. beasley shot a high percentage, meaning he wasn't just running down the lane and throwing shots up because his teammates sucked, nor was he shooting every time down the court due to a lack of a better alternative. i don't see how the rebounds are really a function of his team being bad, either. his team wasn't a good shooting team, but it wasn't incredibly bad, at least not enough to be able to point to team shooting percentage and say "there are your rebounds". lastly, as i've said before, beasley got double and triple-teamed all year because his team was bad. he still managed to score a lot of points and shoot a high percentage while dominating the boards. i don't really know what there's not to like--or a reason to be praying for rose.

what if rose is stephon marbury? supremely gifted and somewhat accomplished, but a relative stranger to playoff basketball.

true, but those are guys that couldn't see with your own eyes before the nba. beasley was on national tv all the time, and so was rose.

and i don't see any real, substantial, convincing evidence to support your case. all that's being said is that rose is the better player. well, why is rose the better player? beasley scored over 26 ppg in 31 mpg. that's seriously impressive and shows me that he can put th eball in the hole. his rebounds show me that he was a dominant post presence and watching him play shows me that he was both physically superior to everyone in college basketball and a good perimeter player. there are not many players with his skillset.

Why would we use stats at the college level to determine who's better? what other, more telling predictor do you have? i didn't come out and say that beasley was the better player, i just said that you can't say that rose is the better player based on anything.

first of all, it's "derrick" rose, second of all, saying he's the better player doesn't make it so. the only real, substantial, provable argument we have is statistics, and beasley destroys everyone in this category. it's not like he played in conference usa, either. beasley dominated the competition and rose gets credited as the better player for it. what a joke.

That's true, but the early returns (his rep from college and HS) are not promising. No one is questioning Rose in that manner, to the best of my knowledge. In any case, we need a guard who can create for himself and others. Rose is the answer. except to get to rose you have to deal with his brother, who is a real piece of work.

bad loss, i think our luck has run out against the pirates.

what could soriano do? extinguish the sun or something. it's not his fault, it's the cub luck that has followed them for pretty much ever.

i've never seen the cubs get the benefit of a play like that at the end of a game. not in my 20 plus years of watching them.

I am not so much proud of it as I am convinced of it. Its like "de ja vu all over again". The fact that we are debating it is the fun of it. We'll soon see if the comparison is apt. there's just no proof that beasley is much like coleman. he dominated the competition while being constantly double-teamed, remaining the focus of the opposing team's defensive strategy. again, his perimeter game is more developed than coleman's ever was, which isn't saying much, but oh well. he routinely took men off the dribble from 25 feet out, he could hit the three with some regularity. he controlled the boards, he was as effective an interior scorer as anyone who has played the college game in recent memory. there's really not much about his game to badmouth. in fact, i can't think of anyone to compare his game to. he's a very unique player in that he's an animal inside with the skills of a 3. you're honestly comparing a guy who dominated the america east conference to a guy who dominated the big 12? a guy who had no outside game, no outside shot to a beasley? are you kidding me? if we're going to get so abstract in our comparison, how about niko skitishvili or darko milicic? how about oliver miller or kurt thomas? if our only criteria now is that said player be relatively tall, why aren't we talking about dwight howard, chris bosh, rasheed wallace, or tim duncan? the more i think about it, the more derrick rose reminds me of scoonie penn, jacques vaughn, and jay williams. there, is that pessimistic of a viewpoint for you? because it makes just as much sense as comparing derrick coleman to michael beasley. I think that is major hyperbole on your part. Makes it difficult to respond to you. Vin Baker had a nice jump shot Perhaps not as developed as Beasley's, but still. The Baker reference was mostly to refute your "he's left-handed and so is Beasley" argument. My main concern with Beasley was and is that he won't work hard enough when he gets to the pros. There are lots of guys who have "mad" athletic skills at that level - will he do what is necessary to put himself into an elite category befitting a number one pick? what is "major hyperbole"? i can't think of many players with beasley's skill set to come out of college. i think imb's comparison to webber is more apt, even though webber didn't have the away-from-the-basket, face-up ability that beasley has. webber developed a lethal mid-range game with time, as his physical domination declined. as far as being a hard-worker, there's no way that anyone here can predict that any draftee will be, for sure, a hard-worker in the nba. so, that's all conjecture.

I am not so much proud of it as I am convinced of it. Its like "de ja vu all over again". The fact that we are debating it is the fun of it. We'll soon see if the comparison is apt. there's just no proof that beasley is much like coleman. he dominated the competition while being constantly double-teamed, remaining the focus of the opposing team's defensive strategy. again, his perimeter game is more developed than coleman's ever was, which isn't saying much, but oh well. he routinely took men off the dribble from 25 feet out, he could hit the three with some regularity. he controlled the boards, he was as effective an interior scorer as anyone who has played the college game in recent memory. there's really not much about his game to badmouth. in fact, i can't think of anyone to compare his game to. he's a very unique player in that he's an animal inside with the skills of a 3. you're honestly comparing a guy who dominated the america east conference to a guy who dominated the big 12? a guy who had no outside game, no outside shot to a beasley? are you kidding me? if we're going to get so abstract in our comparison, how about niko skitishvili or darko milicic? how about oliver miller or kurt thomas? if our only criteria now is that said player be relatively tall, why aren't we talking about dwight howard, chris bosh, rasheed wallace, or tim duncan? the more i think about it, the more derrick rose reminds me of scoonie penn, jacques vaughn, and jay williams. there, is that pessimistic of a viewpoint for you? because it makes just as much sense as comparing derrick coleman to michael beasley.

egad, man. first of all, i never said that beasley was the better rebounder. but okay, beasley is the better rebounder. and i don't see why coleman averaging 10+ rebounds per game in college makes him a better rebounder than beasley. wouldn't coleman have to actually average more rebounds than beasley to be a better rebounder? in beasley's freshman year, he averaged more rebounds per game than coleman ever averaged in any single year at syracuse. where did i say that he didn't score? i said that he was one of the best passers to have played college basketball in the last 20 years. if you're telling me that a ton of those assists weren't going to coleman, you're lying. no, what that tells me is that coleman wasn't double and triple teamed as much as beasley was. your comparison to derrick coleman doesn't fit at all. i know you're all proud of it and that somebody complimented you on it, but besides the fact that both are black, left-handed, fairly tall, and play basketball--it's not much of a comparison. i get the feeling that the left-handed thing is the driving force behind this comparison, and it's just not a good enough reason to think that they're the same person.