strawbossisevil

If he would sign for cheap, and accept our backup PG spot, Iverson would be great. I imagine that he could be had for a short term deal as well, so we wouldn't have to commit long term to a backup PG.

If all they will be doing is sending emails, etc. Why not get them an Ipad? It's much more simple than a Windows/Mac computer. If they want email they just have to press the email button and there it is. One button and they can check the weather. Etc. The less they have to worry about operating systems the better at that age. Simple is better, and the ipad is about as simple as they come.

Gooden is not nearly as bad defensively as you claim. All of his defensive rating stats put him at about the NBA average. In fact, over his career he has given up less defensive points per 100 touches than Kobe Bryant, someone who is respected for his defense. Is he a defensive juggernaut? No. Is he dreadful as you claim over and over again? Not if you are being even remotely objective. Check out basketballreference.com, I think you'll be surprised at how average he is in nearly every defensive statistic/rating. Edit: He also has given up 2 points less per 100 touches than Bogut over his career (although Bogut put up a very, very good season last year on the defensive end of the court and likely will remain superior going forward).

Well, it's going to be tough for the Bucks to ever get to the point of being preseason favorites. We just don't have the marketability to bring in any big name superstar that other organizations do. The only way we can get a player like that is in the draft. And every season that the Bucks have had a top draft pick the players available have been less than superstar quality. No offense to Andrew Bogut or Glenn Robinson, but neither was ever going to be a superstar that could carry our team to a Finals. Our best bet is to fill our team with as many players a step below the superstar level as possible and just hope that our "team" can outperform the individual talent of other organizations. That's what we tried to do with Robinson, Allen, and Cassell and it almost got us into a finals. Here's hoping that having 5 above average starters, and an above average bench produces similar results for us this upcoming season.

Where in Mexico did you study, Jonny? A neat added benefit of doing the whole immersion thing, living w/ a Mexican/Ecuadorian family was getting to see their culture first hand. One of my host families in Ecuador took me along to to football (soccer) game that he was playing in, and introduced me to his friends. My Mexican house mother and I would stay up until bed time just talking, and she'd always try to teach me a joke or two to tell to the teachers the next day. It was a neat experience to get to see a different culture first hand. Also, world travel just is a lot of fun. The Mexico school took us to the huge pyramids in Mexico City and all these other remote archeological places. The Ecuadorian school took us to the rainforest one week, to the beach the next, and took us to climb a volcano and go horseback riding during the weekends. It was really a memorable experience. Plus, the food, especially in Mexico, is second to none. Way better than any Mexican you've ever had in the States. I want to go back sooooooo bad for some tacos al pastor, gorditas, tamale sandwiches, cemitas, burritos de asado, tacos de barbacoa....I could go on forever. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Yum!

Invader, if you can hold out for just a little bit longer. It looks like US Cellular is just about to come out with an Android phone. That would likely be head and shoulders better than anything blackberry puts out.

I wanted to add some thoughts. I know many people look at Rosetta Stone as a possible way of learning a language. And, I'm sure that it aids in learning a language to a certain extent. But so much of language learning is actually speaking the language with other human beings, and I really question how much a computer program can imitate an environment of speaking with other people. Not to mention the tremendous amount of self discipline it would take to spend a significant amount of time using a program like that on a daily basis. To a great extent, it takes away the greatest joy of language learning, actually speaking with human beings, without that I imagine a program like that would become mundane and difficult to continue. When I started studying Spanish in college, I bought a similar program. And while it was useful in helping me learn some generic vocabulary, it really wasn't the huge help I thought it would be. Even studying a language in a college classroom, while not worthless, is not going to provide an opportunity to really learn to actually communicate using the language. You learn vocabulary, you learn grammar, but you don't really have much time to put the two together. In fact, I remember my first year of Spanish in college, and almost failing the class because while I learned grammatical rules quickly, I just didn't really have a strong grasp of the vocabulary (for lack of using it on a daily basis). That summer after my first year, I worked at a job where I was the only person who spoke English (everyone else was from either Mexico or El Salvador). After a summer working with them, I went from being bottom of my Spanish class to top of my Spanish class, because for 8 hours everyday I was forced to communicate in Spanish. It was either that, or keep quiet, and being an extrovert, that wasn't an option. I improved even more following my stay in Ecuador, where everyday I was surrounded, and forced to communicate in Spanish all day long. Vocabulary words which, otherwise, would have seemed so mundane, now had real life meaning and application when I wanted to use them in my everyday speech. This continued during my time in Mexico too, each day I was picking up numerous words which were more than just lists on a page, but were vital to my ability to communicate my thoughts and ideas. No computer program can know what words you need to best express yourself, they give you generic lists, some of which is somewhat meaningless (I still remember having to learn the spanish word for bio-sphere in college - when would I ever use that?). On top of my current job, I've volunteered as an English teacher now for the past four years. And I can see a dramatic difference between my students who just study in class and go home and for the rest of the week speak in their native languages, and those who make an effort to use what they learned in our classes with people around them, actually applying the course materials in real life situations. Those are the students that are always the ones who learn the fastest, and excel at English in the shortest period of time. They are the ones coming up to me after class asking me for specific vocabulary that they want to use in certain situations because they want to actually communicate in the language, rather than simply have a head knowledge of it. So yeah, I know it sounds expensive, the immersion trips. But really, you get what you pay for. If you want to actually know a language and be comfortable speaking it, that is probably the best way the average person can reach that point in a reasonable period of time. The exception would be if you had a job/hobby that allowed you to use the language on a daily basis (like I had that one summer), I still consider that job to be invaluable despite the crummy pay.

I already have canceled my cable. There really is little need for it anymore. I have a digital receiver on both of my TVs, so I get all of the local channels, so I can watch just about everything I want with that. I can watch just about any show I want via Hulu, CBS.com, mlb.com etc. Or by hunting around the web long enough. The only thing I'm still getting from the cable company is roadrunner. And someday, I can envision doing away with that too, like you said, with phones being able to act as routers. The only problem with this, is that most of the big phone companies (other than Sprint) don't have unlimited data anymore. At&t now limits data at 2GB. Go past that and they'll charge you another $25. Same goes for Verizon. I imagine the cable companies breathed a huge sigh of relief when those unlimited plans started going away. Eventually, though, I'll imagine those data limits will start to increase to the point where they'll meet the monthly needs of our digital society, hopefully sooner rather than later.

If, if, if. I'd say it remains to be seen how he will play on defense in Skiles system. I don't think it's likely that PFs that go against him are going to put up numbers like that against him on a nightly basis. I think that is overly pessimistic. I think he'll be a plus for the team over all, and most experts commenting on the signing seem to agree, even if they don't agree with the length of the contract or cost. But hey, if you want to call him terrible, go right ahead. I just can't take that dramatic of a viewpoint seriously.

Sprint's nationwide coverage limps though. I have it here in Florida, and my reception is terrible. And 4G currently isn't available in many places. That said, Evo is a sweet phone especially if you pay for tethering. Sprint is one of the few companies left that still gives unlimited data. So, for a single guy, all you need is an Evo, and you won't have to pay for wireless internet in your apartment, assuming you can get a decent enough signal (better than what I currently get here in FL). The only downside I've heard about that phone is it eats batteries for breakfast, that in some cases you won't even make it through the work day without needing a charge. I'm moving up to Iphone 4 here in a few weeks. Pretty psyched about it. I'm especially excited about the camera that comes with it, as all reviews on it have said can almost measure up with some point and shoot cameras. That's high praise for a cell phone camera. Plus, great HD display, solid battery life, facetime, hd video recording and editing, plus I can keep all of the apps I've purchased for my ipod touch. Plus, in my line of work, there are some specific apps that I use quite frequently that Google simply doesn't have available yet in their app store.

Calling Gooden "terrible" or "horrible" is simply not being objective. The guy nearly averaged a double double in just over 20 minutes per game last season. He is also a guy who, when he makes it to the line converts on a level unseen amongst men his size. Is he a superstar? No. But he is most definitely a slightly above average big man. All of the dramatics get old after a while. It's fine to say you don't like the deal, that you think he's too expensive, signed for too many years etc, but to try to act as if the player we got in this deal is terrible when he clearly isn't, isn't helping your credibility when discussing this deal.

That's interesting thevaccinator, I have a 2G ipod touch and the only problem I've had has been the app store closing randomly on occasion. I haven't noticed any lag, and that's on older hardware.

I would do the upgrade for the following reasons: 1) Folders. You can sort your applications into folders, rather than having to sort through page after page of apps. 2) Threaded email.

Latest from ESPN has it at 5 years 32 Million. http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5346053 This is no where near as bad as you make it out to be, especially if the last year or two are non guaranteed. 6 million per season is not a cap room buster. It's the cost of an average player in the league today, and Gooden should provide us average production throughout that contract. This is no Gadzuric, this is a player who averages close to a double double every night.

Someone on the JSonline blogs has posted that ESPN is saying that the numbers break down this way: Year 1) 5 Million Year 2) 5 Million Year 3) 6 Million Year 4) 7 Million (team option) Year 5) 8 Million (team option) If those numbers are right, then this is a VERY solid deal for the Bucks. If we could sign Salmons, we are in excellent, excellent shape going into next season. This deal also makes us one of the better rebounding teams in the league. One has to think that the Bucks still have a few trade options up their sleeve. With Redd and his expiring contract.

As someone who is bilingual and uses his Spanish on a daily basis, I would highly recommend it. It will make you much, much more employable (and will likely earn you more money, depending on your career). Plus, as so many have pointed out, there is much more opportunity to actually use the language. If you don't use the language on a consistent basis you will never get good at it, in fact, you'll probably lose it over time. Honestly, if you are serious about learning a language (including Spanish), and you have the free time (which unemployment would likely allow), I would take an immersion trip to somewhere you are forced to use nothing but that language. I did this twice with my Spanish, living for a month + in Quito Ecuador, and then 3 months in Puebla, Mexico. My Spanish improved by leaps and bounds both times. I've been told that 1 month being immersed in a foreign country is the equivalent of a year's worth of language classes back in the States. And it is likely cheaper than taking a year's worth of University classes and they are far more fun if you like a bit of adventure. At the one I stayed at in Puebla, the cost for classes, 3 meals a day, trips, board, class materials, transportation to and from the airport was only $1845 for four weeks. The one in Ecuador was a bit more expensive, but had the offer of learning Spanish in the rainforest, which was very, very cool. What was neat about both programs is that they usually focused on classroom work in the morning, and then you would go around with a Spanish speaking guide/teacher and explore the cities in the afternoon. This provide ample time to practice what I had just learned in class and develop conversation skills. Let me know if that is something that interests you, as I could point you to a top notch Spanish institute in either Mexico or Ecuador.

I agree, they should have quite a few solid players. Especially if you add Davies to that list. While I know many have kind of ruled him out, I could see Adu factoring into the national team by 2014. He won't likely be a superstar, that ship has sailed IMO, but he has played fairly well in Greece, and he'll be only 25 in 2014, right in the middle of his prime years. I think these past couple of years have served as a bit of a wake up call for him, and I'm hoping that his renewed work ethic produces some results. He has the type of ball skills that could help us very much in the midfield. I think many forget that is only 21 years old currently, with still quite a bit of potential, just not as much potential as once thought a couple of years ago. I really liked what I saw from Michael Bradley in the last couple of games, and I think that he'll be even better by 2014. Altidore should be right in his prime in 2014 as well. As will Torres, who I think will fill an important role in the mid-field for the US. What we need most for the next world cup are a few lock down defenders as Bocanegra and possibly Onyewu may have played their last World Cup. I think we should be very solid at midfield and forward going into the next World Cup. On defense in four years, one player that could make his way into the picture is Agbossoumonde. As he is already being recognized by European clubs (currently on loan to Braga of the Portuguese league). He is only 18 years old, so there is lots of potential for future growth from him. Another player to keep an eye on is Sebastian Lleget, who at 17, is potentially looking at playing for West Ham United Premier team by year's end. He has been called by one of England's top scouts one of the best players to come through the West Ham system ever. So, lots of potential here in four years. My projected side for 2014 is the following: GK: Howard/Guzan (take your pick, although hopefully Howard has one more in him)DF: SpectorDF: BornsteinDF: AgbossoumondeDF: GoodsonDF: Onyewu (although he may not have much left at this point)MF: BradleyMF: DonovanMF: DempseyMF: TorresMF: EduMF: AduMF: FeilhaberMF: HoldenMF: LlegetFW: AltidoreFW: DaviesFW: GomezFW: Finley (has 4 years to develop his shooting and strength)

On a play that close, I think those line judges need to use more caution. On a goal scoring play, unless you are 100% certain that he was offside, don't put up the flag. To take away a goal in soccer is absolutely killer because of the low scoring nature of the sport. I have to agree with Chris, every replay I've seen showed Dempsey clearly onside. Not by much, mind you, probably by less than a foot, but it was a costly incorrect call. I, quite honestly, am less angry with that disallowed goal than with the first one. At least I could understand why in the heat of the moment the line judge would get the offsides call wrong. I still don't understand how the head referee disallowed our goal against Slovenia other than for ulterior motives. Although I'll say this much, Donovan's goal would have been a whole lot less exciting had they been given the result that they deserved against Slovenia.

The more I watch it, the more I'm convinced that this official had his mind made up to blow the whistle before anything happened. The video actually seems to show him blowing it before Edu even approaches the defender. This official is either A) extremely horrible at his job or B) not interested in calling a fair game. If it is A, why was he officiating a game in the World Cup? If it is B, FIFA needs to make an example of him so that these things don't happen in the future. When calling back a goal, especially one that close to the end of the game, and that important of a goal, you had better be 100% sure that the foul call is completely justifiable before you blow that whistle. If an official made a call like that against some of the countries with more chaotic fan bases, he would be fearing for his life right now. It's just too bad that a whole country's fans have to suffer disappointment because of the moronic call of someone from Mali. The game should be about the failings/successes of the players on the pitch, and not some noob ref. I, personally, hope he never gets to set a foot on the pitch during a professional game again.

Yeah, if we would have won rather than drawn today, we'd be looking at only needing a draw to advance, with a win guaranteeing us the top spot in the group. Now, there is no guarantee, even with a win, that we'll have the top spot in the group, and there is still a significant chance that if we go on that we'll be facing Germany in the round of 16. I would prefer that we not have to play Germany in the knockout rounds, they looked very strong so far, even today while playing a man down. Edit: Menotti, England can still claim the top of the group quite easily if their goal differential in the final game is bigger than ours. For example, if both England and the US would win by one goal, USA would likely get the top spot (unless England would win 4-3, while we win 1-0), but if the US wins 1-0, while England wins 2-0, England would take the top spot based on having a +2 differential vs. our +1. Best case scenario for the US would be to win vs. Algeria and for England and Slovania to draw (I think Slovania will be playing for a draw, so this isn't out of the question).

Wow, with Algeria drawing England, USA's chances of making the final 16 improve dramatically. In order to qualify, we need one of the following to happen: 1) Any win gets us into the next round. If England and Slovenia tie, we would need to have a better goal differential/total goals to have the top seed guaranteed, otherwise it comes down to a coin-flip. 2) A tie gets us into the next round with an England loss. 3) A tie gets us into a coin-flip situation with England if England ties with a score of two more goals than in our game. (For example, if we tie 1-1, a coinflip would occur if England tied 3-3) We fail to qualify in the following situations: 1) We tie and England wins. 2) Any loss.

Eric Wynalda, the former US player, noticed that the US was called for a foul on nearly every set piece throughout the game. He comments that on the reversed goal, that there were four people who could have been called for fouls going by the rules of the game, none of them US players. He believes that with the way the game was called, that there is something fishy going on with this referee. What happens if proof is found that this referee was match fixing? Link to the video of Eric and his analysis of the referee: http://g.sports.yahoo.com...rldcup-19013964/20404937

Here is are the likely scenarios: Assuming England wins today giving them 4 points. If USA wins by 2 or more goals. They are in no matter what. If USA wins by 1 goal. It goes to a tie-breaker if England ties Slovenia. If Slovenia loses, USA goes through. If USA draws. They are out. If USA loses. They are out.

Nuts and bolts, nuts and bolts, we got SCREWED! Interesting that the official will not say who committed the foul when asked by the players. I think he should be investigated because I see no way any US player could have been called for a foul. If any player was guilty of a foul it was the guy that practically tackled Michael Bradley. I´ve watched the replay over and over, and there simply isn´t anything there.

Pathetic officiating. My goodness. Robbed the US of two points. Every replay I´ve seen has shown the US doing nothing deserving of disallowing that third goal. I´m disgusted! I think the US will still get through the group, but that was as bad as the no-handball call against Germany in 2002.