Jump to content

Dbeasy

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    11517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dbeasy

  1. 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.
  2. Oh my god. I just assumed he did this because kidd was complaining about something.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Ha. Damn Apple autocorrect.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. I’m sorry were you saying something?
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. I get that on a home computer when the AT&T Internet is glitchy. I hit refresh on the page and the css loads.
  15. Any plan for retirement has to start with an individual's situation, rather than rely on a generic rule. For example, does the person have a pension or not? What is their risk tolerance? How much social security do they have coming? What are their spending needs? What is their desire for leaving inheritances to kids? There are also macro questions, such as the current state of the stock market, its valuation, bond rates, etc. Based on the answers to all of these questions, and others, you can arrive at the right mix of stock and bonds. The simple model people have followed for years without fully considering some of the questions above is a 60% stock 40% bond portfolio (or 35% bond, 5% cash). That model has worked out pretty well overall through the years. People constantly declare the 60/40 model is dead, only to find it performs reasonably well. Some people drop stocks down below 60% and create a "bond tent" to reduce a risk called sequence of returns risk. That is where the stock market tanks for many years at the beginning of retirement. In a 60/40 portfolio, your odds of running out of money go up if you start retirement with several years in a row of negative returns. A bond tent reduces that risk. Some financial advisers these days are recommending 50/50 or 40/60 because stock market valuations are very high and bond rates are attractive. Some will recommend annuities. I'm not a fan of those at all except for very specific situations. Some people go to 70/30 or 80/20 because they are comfortable taking the risk. Or, they need higher returns to cover their spending rates. They don't have a large enough retirement nest egg that throws off enough returns at 60/40 so they are forced to take more risk. It's probably worth talking to someone and getting some feedback on your situation, or doing internet research to figure out the optimal strategy for you. If it makes you feel any better, I'm pretty knowledgeable about investments and finance and it still took me 2 years into retirement to finally build the investment model that I was most comfortable with.
  16. I don’t get this hostility. He busts his ass to make the site available and working. It’s not a money maker. Why do you have to be such a jerk about it when he’s just trying to figure out how to keep viewership up and get enough money in the door to pay the server costs, etc.
  17. So Jerry’s excuse for using the term is flimsy. I’m so surprised.
  18. Just to reaffirm points made a few times, I know a guy who owns several message board sites on the internet. They are all dying. Younger people just don’t engage much. You can find them on Reddit, but it’s a different type of engagement. They don’t communicate in long threads. They do drive by posts as they feed their psyche with the dopamine from new feeds they scroll thru. People are really screwed up. Combine the above with the polarized political environment and it makes it tough to remain addicted to the site. I’ve tried very hard, so far unsuccessfully, to set aside how I view people who have certain political views. I think other people have the same struggle. This is a new feeling because of how politics has really changed in the last 8 years.
  19. Tell Lott he’s the starting place kicker next year.
  20. I think Texans know the real original definition of glory hole, but thank you for those that are living under a rock. The point being that the urban dictionary definition has made a strong surge in recent years and it always creates an uncomfortable situation when he says it. Good grief. Why did I just have to explain that.
  21. like Jerry Jones constantly referring to glory holes.
  22. Please be kind. Edwin was a friend of mine at Texas. Nice guy. He also banged a few asian girls too who were friends of mine. I don't know what you are talking about. If you're a cop you have to tell me.
  23. Why are none of the pictures showing up in the Jahdae Barron is a BMF thread? Does this have to do with the recent twitter changes? Is this now going to screw up all historical twitter posts? We've lost good functionality by not being able to click on a Tweet and see more about it. Posting them is much harder. I realize Elon seems to be a shithead, but this is a beating.
×
×
  • Create New...