I'm with the OP in that I don't want kids at all. My biggest fear is literally getting a girl pregnant and her keeping the child. There tons of legitimate reasons to not have kids including, but not limited to financial, emotional, and selfish reasons.
Just because someone may not know EXACTLY what it's like to have a kid it doesn't mean they will change for the better and just grow to love the child and be a phenomenal parent.
People who don't have kids only know what it's like not to have kids. People who have kids know what it is like to have kids, and what it is like not to have kids. One of those is a better source of information that the other.
The people who have kids are seeing things from their perspective, and their perspective alone. Just because you or someone sees legitimate reasons to not have a kid as "BS" doesn't mean the decision is right for others or that others will magically change and have this whole 180 turnaround. You can't speak for everyone else or know how a person will change or react to having a kid just like a person who doesn't have a kid can't know exactly what it will be like having a kid.
I like to think I know myself well enough that having a screaming, needy child that I have to pay seemingly constant attention to would piss me off and annoy me really quickly. I would much rather keep my free time, excess spending money, and flexibility with my social life rather than being chained to the needs of a child for the foreseeable future. While that may sound "BS" to you, it's very legitimate and you have no way of knowing if I'd change my mind if I actually had a child. It would be a poor choice to risk to find out.
After giving up on the season midway through and not really bothering to play the waiver wire or strategically start my teams every week, I found out today I'm going to the "super bowl" of my league. The only bummer about that is the guy I'm playing against has Peyton, Foster, Peterson, Welker, Texans D, among other great players. My roster is depleted and I have to heavily rely on Rodgers (having a down year compared to last year), Charles (KC offense is a mess), and Spiller to have a chance.
I had my fantasy draft last night and I was hoping you guys could give it the eye test and tell me what you think:
QB: Aaron Rodgers
RB: Jamaal Charles
RB: MJD
WR: Mike Wallace
WR: Brandon Lloyd
TE: Jason Witten
Flex: Willis Mcgahee
D/ST: Seattle
BN: Torrey Smith
BN: Dwyane Bowe
BN: CJ Spiller
BN: Toby Gerhart
BN: Michael Bush
I totally forgot Mike Wallace was holding out and I panic drafted him in the 4th round. MJD fell to the third round so I figured it was a good risk. I don't think my running back depth is very good, but my receivers should be fine outside of Wallace if he continues to hold out. What does everyone think?
Because the NFL and the NBA draft are different. If you have the number one overall pick in the NFL draft you are much more likely to swing and miss on that prospect than the NBA. In addition, there are multiple positions to fill, and many rounds to find the guys you need. If you have a mid first round pick in the NFL you can get one of the best guys at his position that will hopefully come in on day one and start for you and give you a huge upgrade. If you have a mid first round pick in the NBA that guy may not even play all season. Hell, second round picks in the NBA rarely even make their teams. Second round picks in the NFL are still quality guys who will most likely start or play many snaps with their teams. There's just so many positions to fill in the NFL that you can go many routes and the addition of one guy in the draft isn't likely to completely swing your entire team. With basketball, one guy can clearly swing your team from the lottery to the playoffs.
I'm still not buying draft day shenanigans though. So what you're saying essentially is that David Stern forced these owners to make moves against their will, potentially cost them millions of dollars in ticket revenue and creating bad PR all because Stern wants to bolster certain teams? Why would these billionaire owners agree to this, and how could it possibly remain quiet all this time? Does he just give the owners a call and break the news to them out of the blue that they are moving their franchise piece for .75 on the dollar because a big market team needs help? Teams trade stars for unfair value all the time. It's almost impossible to get full value for a star. Considering the Sonics got the 5 pick and lost Ray Allen isn't a bad deal at all. They obviously wanted to clear cap space, get younger, and build around their two new lottery picks. That wasn't a bad trade (at the time) and teams do that regularly (i.e. Denver and Melo).
Yes, maybe Minnesota could have gotten better offers for Garnett, but getting Al Jefferson in return, who was one of a handful of guys to average 20 and 10 is as close to full value for Garnett as they were going to get. The other guys were throw ins and didn't pan out, but sometimes franchises have to trade their guys for .75 on the dollar. The other alternative is to just let your franchise guy to leave and get nothing from him. You might as well get something from them rather than let him walk. It's exactly what the Magic are going to do with Howard. Whatever trade they make, it doesn't matter what the trade looks like, it's going to be a bad trade for the Magic because you can't get full value for Howard. You just can't. The BEST case scenario for them, and I mean the BEST is if they trade Howard for Bynum straight up. However, the problem with that is that next year when Bynum is up for an extension they are going to have to go through the same headache and just hope that Bynum wants to be in Orlando and sign an extension. The thing of it is though is that they have to trade Dwight for .75 on the dollar or they get nothing for him and then they are really in trouble as a franchise after that.
I can't really give you a good answer on the Gasol trade, except that the trade isn't as bad as it was since Marc Gasol has asserted himself as a top 5 center in the league. But still, that one was weird. As for the Lakers, they have a huge market, nice weather, lots of chances for endorsements and will always be an attractive destination for free agents. It always has and it always will. LA will never be down for long.
@acpc:
I wouldn't say the Bobcats were designed to tank so much as their management is poor and they trade all of their assets (clearly under David Stern's will to bolster other teams). Their best 5 guys would be rotation guys at best (think like the 7th or 8th guy on the bench) on a good team. The Bogut trade is defensible in this regard: when he is healthy he is a top 5 center in the league, averages a double double, and can protect the rim. The W's haven't went anymore with Monte as their franchise player, so maybe it was time to move on. Think of it this way though, if teams are tanking now to get a better chance at getting in the lottery, how many teams would tank if they knew without a doubt that they would be getting a certain pick. You would have garbage teams start tanking before the all star break. Not only that, but more teams would tank, trying to lock in on a certain position.
Cyan, I'm not really sure how the Oden/Durant draft was an 'obvious' example' of the lottery being fixed. Care to elaborate on that? Two of the biggest names in any draft in recent history going to two of the smallest markets in the league doesn't sound like it's in the best interest of the NBA.
Another note on the lottery: the way the lottery works now is one of the most efficient ways of doing things. If it worked like the NFL's draft then you would have 4-6 teams obviously try and tank every year. It just wouldn't make for competitive games and it would be really boring to watch a team throw out the end of their bench for the last 20 games to make sure they got the hot college prospect. At least this way it keeps teams more competitive. If I could personally make one tweak to the draft, I would give everyone in the lottery an equal chance at getting the number one pick and make all the picks in the lottery that way. Then once the first pick was determined, everyone had an equal chance of getting the second pick, etc.
I really don't get all of this lottery fixing stuff. I mean, no matter what the outcome is, people are going to assume it was fixed.
Since New Orleans got it, people assume it was because they needed a buyer for the team and they couldn't sell it otherwise. In reality, it's not even going to matter because that place hardly sold out when Chris Paul was there.
If Charlotte gets the pick it's David Stern helping out his old buddy Michael and helping the worst team in the league get a little bit better.
If Brooklyn gets the pick it's Stern helping out the big market teams and trying to sell Brooklyn fans with a new arena, a new team, and the brow.
If Sacramento gets the pick it's Stern trying to keep a team in Sacramento and helping the Maloofs sell tickets with a franchise player and help with the funding for a new arena.
If Cleveland gets the pick, it's more reparations for Lebron leaving and helping the Cavs get back to respectability.
You can make up some excuse for any team 'winning' the lottery. I think in the best interest of the NBA, they would have given the pick to Brooklyn to bolster and lock down another big market rather than give the pick to a small market team that may or may not move down the road that doesn't have an owner.
I think it would be in the Thunder's best interest to move Harden while his value is through the roof. The only issue is that they would need to bring in another scorer, ideally someone who can get easy points in the point. Personally, I believe scoring is an issue with the Thunder. Don't get me wrong, they are very athletic the big 3 are great scorers, but outside of them they have no one who can consistently score. They don't have a low post scoring presence to get them easy baskets in their half court game and their shooters are average at best. The only way the Thunder get easy baskets is with their transition game and just out running everyone when they get a steal or long rebound. That's not a bad thing, but it really hinders their game when the outside jumpers aren't falling and they aren't getting steals like we saw in the Miami series. If I'm the Thunder, I move Harden while his value is sky high and keep Ibaka instead so they can have defender in the paint who erases shots like it's going out of style.
As far as draft notes go, I was pretty happy with the Blazer's picks. I think Lillard will be fine and if Leonard can be Joel Pryzbilla v 2.0 with a better offensive game I'm just fine with that too. The only thing I'm concerned about is them giving Hibbert a max verbal offer. Not sure if he's worth that. That, and I hope they don't match any offer with Batum that is more than 10 million per year.
Also, I'm sad Lebron has a ring. I wanted him to be forever ringless. Hopefully their whole team goes down next year.
I'm pretty sure it's the system. Melo did fine in Karl's system. They did relatively ok in the playoffs with Melo as the number one guy as he got to the line often, made a high percentage of his free throws, and whether you like it or not he is a pretty good clutch player with the game on the line. In D'antoni's system he wants to run, run, run and that just isn't Melo's game. He wants the ball, he wants iso's and to take it kind of slow. I'm sure if (when) D'antoni gets fired and they bring in a different coach I bet the Knicks will improve assuming that the coach tries to capitalize on the strengths of their best player. Whether that is a good idea to do so is another question.
The Knicks don't have their amnesty clause anymore. They used it on Billups. Good luck moving Turkoglu though. His contract is enormous and he is awful, and is only going to get worse.
Another difference maker in the finals was depth. The Knicks basically have none.
The only thing that bio says is that Howard is a great rebounder and shot blocker. We already know that. He's probably right behind Kevin Love in terms of best rebounder in the league right now. However dominant he is at rebounding, he still doesn't have great post moves and he isn't a closer (the last thing you want is the ball in his hands when you are down two because he can't make free throws). Who would the Knicks even have left if they gave up Amare and Melo? Do you really think the Knicks are better off with Howard and Lin than they are with Amare, Melo, and Lin? And please don't try and say Howard is better than Lebron, Durant, or even Rose.
I will agree with you that Carmelo doesn't really fit well in Dantoni's system, but that doesn't mean Melo is a bad player. The guy is clutch and can close games if needed. Just like a big guy is required to win a championship, a great wing player is also required to draw attention, get to the line, get teammates open, and take the big shot in clutch situations.
I think the Knicks would be better off trying to trade Amare for Howard, but there is literally no reason to give both of their stars. They would be in the exact same spot they are now: mediocrity. Look at what the Magic have done with Howard and mediocre talent around him: nothing. The Knick situation would be the exact same, except with less talent.
And maybe Howard is stronger, faster, and more agile than Shaq, but Howard has no rings. Shaq was dominating. Infinitely more so than Howard. Shaq had post moves and basically was unguardable. You can't say the same thing about Howard. Yes, Shaq had Kobe, but once Shaq left the Lakers struggled to even make the playoffs and didn't win anything meaningful until they got Gasol for nothing and had Bynum. Wade didn't win his championship either until Shaq showed up.
Even if they could trade Chandler, the idea of them trading Amare, Melo, and Chandler for essentially Howard and an overpaid and under performing Turkoglu is idiotic. And why would the Knicks give up both of their stars for Howard? Yes, Howard is good, but he's not this ultra dominant top 3 guy you are making him out to be. I also think everyone needs to pump the breaks a little bit on Lin. He has been great these past 4 games, but this is a very small sample size. I think there needs to be some more time with teams studying him on film and then see how he performs.
There was no way Sac was going to trade Cousins. He may or may not have demanded a trade, but he has too much talent and is one of the only relatively bright spots on an otherwise awful Kings organization. I guess an offer couldn't have hurt though. Just not sure what they would have even offered that would have looked reasonable.
Yeah I'm hesitant with the Griz too. They lost Battier which I think is huge. Yes, you have Tony Allen, but Battier was a leader on and off the court and I feel like that loss is bigger than it seems. That, and I'm always skeptical when guys just sign a big contract. I feel like Gasol and Randolph are going to take a step back after getting their deals (that's assuming Randolph got one, but I can't remember for sure).
I don't see the Mavs going anywhere near repeating or getting back to the finals. They lost Chandler, who was the key piece that got them to the finals, and Barea who stepped up mightily during their playoff run. Odom will help, but that team is just old all around, I don't know how this schedule will help them.
The Blazers will be fine. And by fine, I mean they will make the playoffs and lose in the first round again, remaining in mediocrity. I really love the Crawford signing, but I just don't think this team has the bigs to make a push in the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong. And once again, **** you Greg Oden. Hey, Paul Allen, just let him go after this season. Cut the string. He isn't going to pan out. Just move on. Sometimes you just can't win, let him go.
And midway through that 10 year deal, when Pujols is 36 and his numbers are half of what they used to be, at best, he won't be worth 25 million. The guy isn't the Pujols in his 20's. The guy is 31, he isn't going to get any better, and the last thing you want to do is pay a late 30's, early 40's guy 25 million per season.
Just because someone may not know EXACTLY what it's like to have a kid it doesn't mean they will change for the better and just grow to love the child and be a phenomenal parent.
The people who have kids are seeing things from their perspective, and their perspective alone. Just because you or someone sees legitimate reasons to not have a kid as "BS" doesn't mean the decision is right for others or that others will magically change and have this whole 180 turnaround. You can't speak for everyone else or know how a person will change or react to having a kid just like a person who doesn't have a kid can't know exactly what it will be like having a kid.
I like to think I know myself well enough that having a screaming, needy child that I have to pay seemingly constant attention to would piss me off and annoy me really quickly. I would much rather keep my free time, excess spending money, and flexibility with my social life rather than being chained to the needs of a child for the foreseeable future. While that may sound "BS" to you, it's very legitimate and you have no way of knowing if I'd change my mind if I actually had a child. It would be a poor choice to risk to find out.
QB: Aaron Rodgers
RB: Jamaal Charles
RB: MJD
WR: Mike Wallace
WR: Brandon Lloyd
TE: Jason Witten
Flex: Willis Mcgahee
D/ST: Seattle
BN: Torrey Smith
BN: Dwyane Bowe
BN: CJ Spiller
BN: Toby Gerhart
BN: Michael Bush
I totally forgot Mike Wallace was holding out and I panic drafted him in the 4th round. MJD fell to the third round so I figured it was a good risk. I don't think my running back depth is very good, but my receivers should be fine outside of Wallace if he continues to hold out. What does everyone think?
I'm still not buying draft day shenanigans though. So what you're saying essentially is that David Stern forced these owners to make moves against their will, potentially cost them millions of dollars in ticket revenue and creating bad PR all because Stern wants to bolster certain teams? Why would these billionaire owners agree to this, and how could it possibly remain quiet all this time? Does he just give the owners a call and break the news to them out of the blue that they are moving their franchise piece for .75 on the dollar because a big market team needs help? Teams trade stars for unfair value all the time. It's almost impossible to get full value for a star. Considering the Sonics got the 5 pick and lost Ray Allen isn't a bad deal at all. They obviously wanted to clear cap space, get younger, and build around their two new lottery picks. That wasn't a bad trade (at the time) and teams do that regularly (i.e. Denver and Melo).
Yes, maybe Minnesota could have gotten better offers for Garnett, but getting Al Jefferson in return, who was one of a handful of guys to average 20 and 10 is as close to full value for Garnett as they were going to get. The other guys were throw ins and didn't pan out, but sometimes franchises have to trade their guys for .75 on the dollar. The other alternative is to just let your franchise guy to leave and get nothing from him. You might as well get something from them rather than let him walk. It's exactly what the Magic are going to do with Howard. Whatever trade they make, it doesn't matter what the trade looks like, it's going to be a bad trade for the Magic because you can't get full value for Howard. You just can't. The BEST case scenario for them, and I mean the BEST is if they trade Howard for Bynum straight up. However, the problem with that is that next year when Bynum is up for an extension they are going to have to go through the same headache and just hope that Bynum wants to be in Orlando and sign an extension. The thing of it is though is that they have to trade Dwight for .75 on the dollar or they get nothing for him and then they are really in trouble as a franchise after that.
I can't really give you a good answer on the Gasol trade, except that the trade isn't as bad as it was since Marc Gasol has asserted himself as a top 5 center in the league. But still, that one was weird. As for the Lakers, they have a huge market, nice weather, lots of chances for endorsements and will always be an attractive destination for free agents. It always has and it always will. LA will never be down for long.
@acpc:
I wouldn't say the Bobcats were designed to tank so much as their management is poor and they trade all of their assets (clearly under David Stern's will to bolster other teams). Their best 5 guys would be rotation guys at best (think like the 7th or 8th guy on the bench) on a good team. The Bogut trade is defensible in this regard: when he is healthy he is a top 5 center in the league, averages a double double, and can protect the rim. The W's haven't went anymore with Monte as their franchise player, so maybe it was time to move on. Think of it this way though, if teams are tanking now to get a better chance at getting in the lottery, how many teams would tank if they knew without a doubt that they would be getting a certain pick. You would have garbage teams start tanking before the all star break. Not only that, but more teams would tank, trying to lock in on a certain position.
Another note on the lottery: the way the lottery works now is one of the most efficient ways of doing things. If it worked like the NFL's draft then you would have 4-6 teams obviously try and tank every year. It just wouldn't make for competitive games and it would be really boring to watch a team throw out the end of their bench for the last 20 games to make sure they got the hot college prospect. At least this way it keeps teams more competitive. If I could personally make one tweak to the draft, I would give everyone in the lottery an equal chance at getting the number one pick and make all the picks in the lottery that way. Then once the first pick was determined, everyone had an equal chance of getting the second pick, etc.
Since New Orleans got it, people assume it was because they needed a buyer for the team and they couldn't sell it otherwise. In reality, it's not even going to matter because that place hardly sold out when Chris Paul was there.
If Charlotte gets the pick it's David Stern helping out his old buddy Michael and helping the worst team in the league get a little bit better.
If Brooklyn gets the pick it's Stern helping out the big market teams and trying to sell Brooklyn fans with a new arena, a new team, and the brow.
If Sacramento gets the pick it's Stern trying to keep a team in Sacramento and helping the Maloofs sell tickets with a franchise player and help with the funding for a new arena.
If Cleveland gets the pick, it's more reparations for Lebron leaving and helping the Cavs get back to respectability.
You can make up some excuse for any team 'winning' the lottery. I think in the best interest of the NBA, they would have given the pick to Brooklyn to bolster and lock down another big market rather than give the pick to a small market team that may or may not move down the road that doesn't have an owner.
As far as draft notes go, I was pretty happy with the Blazer's picks. I think Lillard will be fine and if Leonard can be Joel Pryzbilla v 2.0 with a better offensive game I'm just fine with that too. The only thing I'm concerned about is them giving Hibbert a max verbal offer. Not sure if he's worth that. That, and I hope they don't match any offer with Batum that is more than 10 million per year.
Also, I'm sad Lebron has a ring. I wanted him to be forever ringless. Hopefully their whole team goes down next year.
Another difference maker in the finals was depth. The Knicks basically have none.
I will agree with you that Carmelo doesn't really fit well in Dantoni's system, but that doesn't mean Melo is a bad player. The guy is clutch and can close games if needed. Just like a big guy is required to win a championship, a great wing player is also required to draw attention, get to the line, get teammates open, and take the big shot in clutch situations.
I think the Knicks would be better off trying to trade Amare for Howard, but there is literally no reason to give both of their stars. They would be in the exact same spot they are now: mediocrity. Look at what the Magic have done with Howard and mediocre talent around him: nothing. The Knick situation would be the exact same, except with less talent.
And maybe Howard is stronger, faster, and more agile than Shaq, but Howard has no rings. Shaq was dominating. Infinitely more so than Howard. Shaq had post moves and basically was unguardable. You can't say the same thing about Howard. Yes, Shaq had Kobe, but once Shaq left the Lakers struggled to even make the playoffs and didn't win anything meaningful until they got Gasol for nothing and had Bynum. Wade didn't win his championship either until Shaq showed up.
I don't see the Mavs going anywhere near repeating or getting back to the finals. They lost Chandler, who was the key piece that got them to the finals, and Barea who stepped up mightily during their playoff run. Odom will help, but that team is just old all around, I don't know how this schedule will help them.
The Blazers will be fine. And by fine, I mean they will make the playoffs and lose in the first round again, remaining in mediocrity. I really love the Crawford signing, but I just don't think this team has the bigs to make a push in the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong. And once again, **** you Greg Oden. Hey, Paul Allen, just let him go after this season. Cut the string. He isn't going to pan out. Just move on. Sometimes you just can't win, let him go.