Jump to content

Dbeasy

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    12184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dbeasy

  1. Cross posting here because it fills in some details the board hasn’t fully addressed. This totally makes sense now, especially “why Lakers?” It’s a bribe for the nba to step aside https://x.com/loewylawfirm/status/1886211634097746331?s=46&t=1xhM83oX4_0pVKdmxhpexA
  2. As Troy Aikman mentioned last week, having a strong running game requires commitment and a certain attitude, including having offensive linemen who have a bit of a nasty streak to them. That advice is pretty consistent with what we’ve seen in the past at Texas and elsewhere. I hope Texas is weighing that heavily for its OL recruiting.
  3. This analysis of the deal is pretty compelling. It is consistent with some of the views here on surly. It answers the one question I couldn’t really figure out. Why give Luka to the Lakers? According to this analysis, it’s so the NBA won’t interfere with the tanking or the move to Vegas. I really think this is what’s really going on. https://x.com/loewylawfirm/status/1886211634097746331?s=46&t=1xhM83oX4_0pVKdmxhpexA
  4. Ok how about this. It’s all an elaborate ruse to fleece AD from the Lakers and Luka signs with Dallas in the offseason.
  5. It’s not the worst trade in NBA history. It’s the worst trade in organized sports history.
  6. I don’t understand your point. Who is Dallas and who are the Lakers here? Because Dallas got NOTHING like what OKC got. And Luka is a bigger star than George. Who cares if the Lakers acquire a guy who underperforms. We are talking about Dallas making a terrible decision, because they could have gotten 3-5x more from some other teams.
  7. Maybe Luka really really liked massage parlors.
  8. SA wouldn’t trade their star but I bet they would have traded multiple first round draft choices.
  9. He will just say Anthony Davis is the only person they wanted, and that’s all they could get for Luka from the Lakers.
  10. When the Mavs hired Nico I thought it was the dumbest decision I’d ever seen, because his background was in a completely different business. He knew nothing about running a basketball franchise. And then when he traded for Kyrie, it reinforced that belief because of the overlap with Luka and his current status in the league. But then that move was great, in retrospect, and everyother move he made was great too, and I assumed he must know a lot more than what his position would imply. This move throws all of it out the window. There has to be more to the story, or he was incredibly lucky with his previous moves that looked bad working out great.
  11. Whether each team is better or not the key issue. The key here is that the Lakers acquired an extremely valuable asset for next to nothing. Dallas could have gotten so much more franchise help than they got. To add to crazy conspiracy theories, it sure shines a light on the Mavericks not getting a TV deal done for coverage outside of Dallas.
  12. Oh my god. I just assumed he did this because kidd was complaining about something.
  13. l’ve always been a spurs fan first and Mavs second except for 2011, but this move makes me feel really sorry for Mavs fans and not excited that it should benefit the spurs slightly by taking one team out of the long term race for the top of the West.
  14. Cuban retaining 28% of the franchise was very likely a requirement by the Adelsons’s, not Cuban’s desire. Most private equity deals require that. First, it ensures the seller remains cooperative and helpful after the deal closes, but more importantly it reduces the amount of money required to fund the deal, raising the return on equity down the line once the entity sells again in the future.
  15. And to everyone who believes this mavericks team will play better than the one with Luka, 90% of nba games are won down the stretch with clutch shots by superstars. And guess what? There are only about 4-5 teams that have that type of superstar who can do it. The Mavs until last night were one. They will never sniff the finals ever again during our lifetime.
  16. Ha. Damn Apple autocorrect.
  17. Ok so I already posted what would have to be true in order for this trade to not be the worst in sports history. Now let’s look at this from a conspiracy theory view. Why did Cuban sell the franchise to such a questionable buyer? One reason. They offered the most money. But did they? Cuban sold 72% for $3.5b. Let’s say it was a 15% premium over other bids, or $500m more than any other bid. That is not chump change to a guy worth probably around $5-6B. But the Adelsons tank the franchise, requiring a major injection of capital at a substantially lower valuation. Cuban can’t put more money in and gets diluted down in ownership even further. The Adelsons essentially “get back” some of the extra premium they paid over other bids. Cuban gets screwed. Meanwhile, the Adelsons who love the Lakers and have a suite, have some sort of nefarious back room deal with the Lakers that may or may not have a Vega mob element, to deliver a title to the Lakers while the Mavs end up as a Vegas franchise. Put on your tin foil hats
  18. I typed out a long write-up about how this was the worst trade in the history of organized sports, but deleted it. I still think it probably will be, and it's obvious. But instead of just piling on with everyone else, I tried to step back and think about this from the Mavs perspective and come up with some sort of rationale that isn't a conspiracy theory revolving around moving the franchise to Vegas. It's the only way to keep my sanity. For this trade to make sense from the Mavs perspective, the following must be true: 1. The Mavs believe Anthony Davis was the only player out there who could get them to the title in the near term, hence why he wasn't shopped to other teams. (maybe?). 2. The Mavs believe with Anthony Davis they will get to the finals this year and can win it. (I'm skeptical). 3. Luka was a problem, not only because of the cost of the extension, but also maybe he was not going to sign, or was difficult to deal with, or some other reason. (maybe?) 4. The team was going to have to be blown up next year because of the cost of Kyrie and Luka contracts. (maybe). 5. The approach of using two superstar point guards was good enough to make the finals but not good enough to win the title (probably true). 6. This is all they could get out of the Lakers (no way; this is bullshit; if pressed the Lakers would have caved for 2-3 #1 picks). If all six of these are not true, this is the worst trade in the history of sports.
  19. I’m sorry were you saying something?
  20. I can’t comment on the other poster’s post because I didn’t read it. I was only referencing your inference that the inauguration was responsible for an improvement in rates. There is virtually no correlation at all at this point because no one in the bond market understands the policies and impact of those policies. So my point is that the current sample size is zero, not small. In fact, if the bond market actually did react by now to stated policies, then the ten year would probably be at 5% and rising. Why hasn’t it? They aren’t sure what the policies really are because this administration has a history of saying one thing and doing another, often as a negotiating tactic. The bond market is taking that into account at this point and as a result rates have been bouncing around. And on the topic of jobs, early reported job numbers have always been way off, and often too optimistic. It’s been that way forever. It’s a difficult metric to get accurate data early. It’s is not unusual at all to see them revised downward, a lot. If people are mocking you (I’m not), maybe it’s because you are assuming the Fed doesn’t understand that and as a result have kept rates too high for too long. That is a bit naive. Like I said, these revised job numbers surprise no one, including the Fed. They have more data in front of them than we could ever imagine. Sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes they get it right. You boasting that you are the only one to get it right is not only premature, it’s a fifty fifty coin flip anyway.
  21. Spiking the football at the 5 yard line isn’t a great idea. Right now long term rates are being affected by a combination of a potential risk of inflation, offset by a flight to safety over concerns about the economy. Rates are bouncing around a fairly narrow range right now. It’s mostly meaningless. The main act won’t hit for several months. Let’s see what happens by summer to October timeframe. By then, it should be clear whether inflation will re-ignite or not, and whether Trump policies end up being good or bad.
  22. I have not watched Barnes teams closely since he left Texas. But one thing I noticed that he always did in the last 4-5 minutes of close games was to slow down the pace significantly, put the ball in the hands of one person, and rely heavily on that person to either score or distribute the ball to someone for a shot, usually late in the shot clock. He did this even when they had significant talent advantages in a game. That approach causes losses at times in games they otherwise should have been able to win by simply out-talenting the other team down the stretch. Of course, that approach also wins some games. It makes his teams more unpredictable in the tournament.
  23. Just one note on strategies to hold several years of cash, or lower yielding instruments like CD’s or shorter term bonds to reduce risk during stock market crashes: It definitely helps reduce risk. But all of these bucket strategies still leave people with some sequence of return risk, unless their overall portfolio is so large in relation to their spending that they really don’t have to worry about out running out of money in the first place. Why? Holding these buffers or buckets mean some portion of the portfolio is earning less than stocks or some bonds, and over the long term, the overall portfolio performance may not be able to keep up with inflation, causing a person to run out of money in the 30-40 years of retirement. Interestingly, today that’s a great strategy because the delta in rates between 10 year bonds and money market accounts is very minimal, and stock market valuations are stretched
  24. I get that on a home computer when the AT&T Internet is glitchy. I hit refresh on the page and the css loads.
×
×
  • Create New...