Jump to content


teeray

Member Since 10 Jan 2011
Offline Last Active Today, 09:33 AM
-----

#2863031 The downsides of being rich

Posted by teeray on 24 July 2014 - 11:18 AM

The only people that say money does not matter are those that do not have it and are too stupid/lazy to get it.

 

Carry on with your pity party.....you are a financial failure because of your own actions, even if you continue to blame "society" for your problems.

 

Money doesn't matter.  And I have a decent bit of it.

 

Depends on how you measure your self worth.  If it is in your pocketbook, I can see where you judge yourself and others based on the amount of money they have or make. 

 

To me I don't give a poo, I have been poor and I have had money (when I was gambling more sometimes in the same week), and neither place has changed the way I feel, or my feeling of self worth.  I was the same either way.  Easy come easy go, but I will be still be here whether I make money or lose it, so better find a better way to stay happy other than money

 

 




#2861805 The downsides of being rich

Posted by teeray on 23 July 2014 - 10:15 AM

I can't remember who this quote is attributed to but I always refer to this quote:

"Money can't buy you happiness, but it is a lot more comfortable crying in a Mercedes than on a bike"


#2861782 conflicting rulings on major ACA provision

Posted by teeray on 23 July 2014 - 10:00 AM

I hear ya tee. Of those on aca were all 5 million previously uninsured? Im not anti ACA as much as there is some iffy dots that don't connect for me. Not saying people haven't benefited to date but deficits going down and revenues up for hospitals that easily this early doesn't add all the way up.
Keep in mind I know how to look at a company's balance sheet or p&l and see the stock go up and people are happy then look deeper and go guys you will be bankrupt on or near this date.
I hope they fix some holes in time.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using CarolinaHuddle mobile app


Yes the 5 million are people previously not insured, and the largest group to get insurance who did not previously have it were young people.

At least according to the Commonwealth Fund survey.


#2861754 conflicting rulings on major ACA provision

Posted by teeray on 23 July 2014 - 09:36 AM

Outside of the initial roll out it is hard to see where this is anything but a success so far.

Hospital revenues have skyrocketed, and last quarter the increase was the highest in the previous 4 quarters COMBINED (which theoretically should slow health care price rises)

Premiums are lower than originally projected

The uninsured has dropped from 20% to 15% and over 5 million people are newly insured

The number of young people without insurance dropped from 28% to 18%, the biggest drop of uninsured out of all age groups (will keep premiums down)

According to the Commonwealth Fund survey: By June, 60 percent of adults with new coverage through the marketplaces or Medicaid reported they had visited a doctor or hospital or filled a prescription; of these, 62 percent said they could not have accessed or afforded this care previously.

As I said earlier, the recipients of the health insurance overwhelmingly are satisfied with their health care plans.

The CBO says that ACA will REDUCE the deficit.


I mean... I know all my Republican friends keep telling me the real danger is just around the corner, I have been hearing it for three years. Like the little boy who cried wolf, I am finding it harder to believe them with each new success.


#2861711 conflicting rulings on major ACA provision

Posted by teeray on 23 July 2014 - 09:01 AM

It is interesting that if a poll asks ask if you support Obamacare in a general sense, the results tend to be negative, but if you ask about its actual effects and how it is working individually it is overwhelmingly positive.


#2861613 A Whole Thread for my Dungy Comment, I Deserve It

Posted by teeray on 23 July 2014 - 06:38 AM

I wonder if he would have had a similar view for black football players and coaches as the NFL integrated?


#2861247 As you have grown up have you become more liberal or more conservative?

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 06:09 PM

What I find stunning is that so many of my friends have your exact view and yet when i point out that the libertarian party is:
Socially Liberal
Fiscally conservative
responsible on a global basis

They look at me like I have 2 heads

The reason I haven't considered the libertarian party is because they are too fiscally conservative. I am all for responsible cuts in spending, but am not quite on board to dismantle the IRS and abolish federal taxes, shut down the US department of education, end entitlements completely, cutting the military, etc. That seems to be their tax and spending platform.

Especially in a economice environment in which we probably need to tax the rich and corporations more.

I flirted with the Libertarian party a little @2006 but at the end couldn't get on board with their tax policy.


#2860970 As you have grown up have you become more liberal or more conservative?

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 12:09 PM

So....., are you saying you've become more liberal, conservative, neither or both?

I responded earlier, in the thread. I am quickly becoming more anti-Republican than anything else. And I was a proud Republican until @2006 or 2007. A shame really.

Hard to support people who are trying to fug over its own people for no real reason other than spite


#2860958 As you have grown up have you become more liberal or more conservative?

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 12:02 PM

This health care ruling that just came down a few minutes ago is reason 5,764,218,123,900,850 why the Republican/Conservative establishment sucks and is punishing it's citizens out of spite of a President. Fugging ridiculous


#2860765 Noah and PJ to have limited roles.

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 08:36 AM

Vonleh simply isn't ready to contribute from a physical stand point. PJ isn't ready mentally, and I think it showed in Summer League. But I think PJ is more ready to contribute and I think there is a chance that by season's end he is earning decent minutes off the bench.

I think Vonleh is a lot further away, his body looks great but his body still has to mature (if that even makes sense). Right now, despite being 240 pounds he plays too weak. Once he grows into his body I think he can become a big time player. But to steal a line from the draft, he is two years away from being two years away. I hop the FO and fans have the patience to give him the proper time to fully develop, which may not be till his second contract


#2860645 Bonnell: Hornets Are Not Pursing Shawn Marion

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 06:51 AM

Bonnell: Agent of No


#2860643 Hornets Sign Marvin Williams

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 06:48 AM

People may look back a year from now and realize that this signing was just as important as the Stephenson signing. Not saying they are equal players, but equally important to how the team is constructed.

BTW I think Cho has proven he has a better handle of what the market is for a player like Marvin than a random forum poster


#2860629 Just a teaser of what we can look forward to

Posted by teeray on 22 July 2014 - 06:11 AM




#2860164 Extreme butthurt brought to you by Pacers beat writer

Posted by teeray on 21 July 2014 - 05:02 PM

Dan Devine at Yahoo Sports has a pretty thorough takedown of this article

 

http://sports.yahoo....-174942087.html

 

 


Lance Stephenson's decision to turn down a five-year, $44 million contract offer from the Indiana Pacers to accept a three-year, $27.4 million deal with the Charlotte Hornets left plenty of people scratching their heads ... including, it seems, Larry Bird.

Related Stories
 

The Pacers' team president, a longtime Stephenson booster, picked the Brooklyn-born guard in the second round of the 2010 NBA draft. He took a very hands-on role in helping Stephenson evolve from lightly regarded end-of-the-bench player into linchpin starter on a team that made consecutive Eastern Conference finals appearances, and Stephenson's vocal about his appreciation. He led off his farewell-to-Indy tweet by thanking Bird, said after signing in Charlotte that he's "definitely going to miss Larry Bird," and issued a statement through his agent, Alberto Ebanks, that said he was "especially grateful to his teammates, Frank Vogel, Herb Simon, the Pacers management and, most of all, Larry Bird" for all they'd done to help him.

"Lance will miss the city, the team and the mentor who helped transform him into the dynamic player he has become," the statement read.

 

Stephenson's "undying love for Larry Bird and for his [Pacers] teammates" made it "a tough decision," but in the end, he chose to leave Indianapolis for Charlotte. For fewer years. And for less guaranteed money. As Bird told Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis Star in a let's-get-the-team's-side-of-the-story-out-there bit of home cooking, he doesn't get it:

 

 

Bird could stomach this if Stephenson had left for much greener pastures, a lot more cash. But the argument can be made that he left for a worse deal."I really feel bad about losing him," Bird said. "I hope it doesn't interfere with our relationship. But I did what I could possibly do to keep him here. Even if he didn't have any other offers, I was committed to giving him that $44 million because I believe in the kid. If you look at our roster, we have five or six guys in the last year of their deals, plus David (West) and Roy (Hibbert) can opt out, so don't you think I wanted to keep Lance and Paul (George) locked into long-term deals?"
 

"It's just disappointing," Bird said. "When I'd go to practices, when he was on, he was by far our best player. And he worked. If you work as hard as he does, you're going to get better. I'm going to miss the kid, no question. And he's growing up. That stuff he pulled in the playoffs, that was out of the blue. But I knew how good Lance was and the value he brought to our team."

 

I have no doubt that Bird knew how good and how valuable Stephenson was, and that he probably knew it earlier and understood it more completely than just about anyone else. The problem, though, is that it seems the Pacers' other front-office decision-makers — namely Donnie Walsh and Kevin Pritchard — didn't grasp it early enough to set hard lines in previous negotiations that would leave enough financial wiggle room on the books to pay Stephenson what he'd be worth in the early stages of a new contract. (The "$7 million trap" concept floated a couple of summers ago by Tim Donahue of Pacers blog 8 Points, 9 Seconds looks awful prescient right about now.)

 

Kravitz compares the average annual values of the deals offered by the Pacers (five years, $44 million, about $8.8 million per season) and the Hornets (three years, $27.4 million, just over $9 million per season) and upbraids Stephenson for leaving Indiana "for a couple hundred thousand dollars, a pittance by basketball standards." In telling the Pacers' side of the story, though, he doesn't tell the whole story; the details matter.

 

Per Donahue, Indiana's five-year, $44 million offer would have started Stephenson off at "roughly $7.7 million next season, and [paid] a combined $15.9 million in the first two." Charlotte's deal, on the other hand, pays a flat $9 million per year and $18 million total for the first two seasons, meaning it guarantees about $2.1 million more up front ... which is a pretty significant chunk of change when you've made $3,435,000 in salary through your first four pro seasons.

 

The Hornets' offer covering two fewer years matters, too. I'm with Kravitz (and, I'd suspect, most other folks) in thinking that it's a pretty sizable win for the Hornets that they hold a team option for the final season of Stephenson's deal, and that it's something of a head-scratcher that Lance's reps didn't get that flipped the other way to afford him the option of hitting the market unfettered after two years. Still, though, the Charlotte contract ensures that Stephenson will return to unrestricted free agency no later than the summer of 2017, when he'll be 26 years old and entering his athletic prime.

 

The Pacers' deals — Kravitz says that Bird "had a couple of five-year options" when he met with Stephenson at the start of free agency — would have tied Stephenson up through the summer of 2019, when he'll be a couple of months shy of his 29th birthday, with (ideally, from Indy's perspective) two more years of heavy-minutes, deep-playoff-push miles on his legs. A younger Lance with more tread left on his tires is likely to receive a more lucrative third-contract offer than one who will hit 30 after the first year of his next deal.

 

Beyond that, the sooner a player can re-enter free agency, the sooner he can reap the benefits of the league's forthcoming windfall. The NBA's current television deal ends after the the 2015-16 season, and Adam Silver and company are reportedly looking to double the rights fees the NBA receives from its broadcast partners in its next TV contract. Broadcast rights revenues are included in basketball-related income (BRI). As BRI increases, so does the pool of money players receive; so, too, does the annual salary cap (which is calculated based on projected BRI) and the amount of a maximum salary (ditto).

 

In sum: The more money the league makes, the more money teams can spend on salary and the more money players can make. Those new, richer deals will likely be available in the next couple of years. This is one reason why you're seeing stars like LeBron James opt for two-year mini-max deals rather than a full four- or five-year pact; today's largest long-term possible payday will likely wind up being less lucrative than the largest possible payday available in two summers.

 

Of course, there's something to be said for taking today's top guaranteed dollar rather than banking on bigger bucks down the line — it's unlikely that, say, Chris Bosh and Carmelo Anthony will regret choosing to make $26.8 million and $27.9 million (respectively) in 2018-19. But whereas this likely represented the last blowout deal go-around for Bosh and Anthony, the 23-year-old Stephenson is just entering his high-earning years and is willing to bet on himself being able to boost his market value with a primary role on a perhaps-ready-for-prime-time Hornets squad on the rise. It's a gamble, to be sure, but it's one that Bird and the Pacers were unable to convince Stephenson not to take.

 

Kravitz reports that "according to Bird, the Pacers were willing to offer a shorter-term contract that would have given Stephenson the chance to cash in should his game continue to grow." As Donahue notes, though, any shorter deal Indiana tendered would almost certainly have paid Stephenson less than he'll make over the next two or three years in Charlotte.

 

Kravitz reports that Indy was "willing, however grudgingly, to give Stephenson a player option midway through a five-year contract so that he could opt-out and test the market once the cap money increased." They can't do that. Option clauses only allow contracts to be extended for one additional year beyond their scheduled end dates, so the earliest that Bird could have let Lance opt out of a long-term deal would have been after Year 4, the summer of 2018. The version of Kravitz's story that shows up on USA TODAY's site reflects that CBA reality (" ... to give Stephenson a player option after four years of a five-year contract"), but while that framework would offer one more season of guaranteed salary, it would also still come up shorter than Charlotte's in the first three years and prevent Stephenson from entering free agency for an additional year. It would push Stephenson to give something up on both ends of the deal. Charlotte's doesn't.

 

Indy could have finagled its way into enough room to match the first-year salary Charlotte offered Stephenson, but Bird and company would have had to shed nearly $6.1 million in salary to avoid topping the $76.829 million luxury-tax line, as owner Herb Simon has made it clear that he doesn't want to pay the tax. As Kravitz frames it, if the Pacers met Stephenson's price, "they would have been left with a thoroughly depleted bench and been forced to deal with the luxury tax." Forced, though, seems a bit much, and unfairly casts Lance as the heavy. It's not Stephenson's fault that the Pacers are paying George Hill $8 million next year, or Luis Scola nearly $4.9 million, or Ian Mahinmi and Chris Copeland a combined $7.135 million. Those decisions came from the Pacers' brain trust, and now they're paying for them.

 

This isn't a matter of Indy thinking Stephenson isn't worth the money he got; Bird's comments about "the value [Stephenson] brought to our team" make that much clear. It's a matter of previous decisions rendering the Pacers unable to match Stephenson's rate without making other concessions, the Pacers being unwilling to make those concessions, and Stephenson choosing a deal that offered more money up front and more freedom down the line — plus a starring role on a team that now may well be just as competitive in the East as Indiana over the next few years — over taking a "hometown discount" on the first big-money contract of his career. It's a pretty reasonable decision once you get past that first-blush head-scratching. It's understandable that Bird finds the outcome "disappointing," but he and the rest of the Pacers front office really don't have anyone to blame but themselves.




#2860137 Game Of Thrones Grown Up Talk. Do Not Enter Unless You Have Finished All The...

Posted by teeray on 21 July 2014 - 04:42 PM

Doesn't matter.  Once you take your vows of the Night's Watch, you release all claims to titles and inheritances.  Even if he is alive he is a crow for life.  Everyone has turned on him, even his former family, and now his brothers of the Night's Watch.  He is going to be bitter after everything he has done for them, even giving up his true love to protect them.

 

None of that matter though, because he is dead and will be resurrected or healed by the White Walkers with full consciousness, become their leader, and storm Westeros on the back of an ice dragon freezing all of Westeros, because he is the only one in the north who has the ability through blood to tame dragons.

 

Dany, Tyrion, and.... I don't know, maybe Aegon, are going to return on fire breathing dragons and there will be a battle of the centuries between the remaining survivors who have all but killed themselves trying to gain the Iron Throne, The Hound's fire sword, and the fire breathing dragons whoopin ass against John Snow who is now the villain leading the wights and White Walkers.






Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.