GatorBait19

What I meant by look like is, they like their stadiums looking (NEW) that's what I should have put that more than what their designs are. Lucas and Ford got theirs because they are domed. And Ray Jay is considered the crown Jew by a lot of writers and NFL people, it has a ship in it, the contruction of it (how it fits the Bucs with endzone sections looking like old age shacks), and the field and how it drains to how the grass grows. Plus the fact they have two of the biggest Video Screens in the league (not the biggest so not to be taken out of context) A referendum is a direct vote either yes or no. Pretty much the Stadium was on a bill with new school building and improvement to public safety, so it passed 53 to 47. How do you know people in Ybor City....... they have a grand population of like 10, it's not even a city. They fall under Tampa rules and city limits. It's more of a club area with Ghetto's surrounding it. also I do not believe it is an eyeore (better than George Steinbrenner Field ) they keep it nice on the outside with 8 huge poster of star players every year. Also it isn't really around anything. Maybe the old stadium was the eye sore The Stadium only cost 168.5 million to build (back in 97), it was built mainly from volunteers and the waste of money I could agree with but I blame that more on government than the Bucs. Bucs were just smart, they were on the verge of moving, city panicked and they signed a lease were Bucs made most of all the money with none of the cost. But they don't make the money of concerts, college games, or other events. It has brought 2 Superbowls in 10 years and more than likely will add a 3 by the 16 year, which have helped pay for it really. City last year announced we made probably 500 million just from the two superbowls, over 600 millions from the Outback bowl games, so yeah. Also, Citi Field and Yankee Stadium would be useless in the Olympics. 1) Baseball is played during the Olympics (the majors) 2) there is no baseball in the Olympics. (anymore) Also I've talked to people up in New York, who believe Madison Square Garden is a joke, they say it's nothing like it use to be and question if the renovations will even make that big of a difference. I've Also heard that it is an eye sore itself

I could be very wrong, but I remember seeing game footage of them during those four superbowl years and having packed stadiums

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="lazorbeak" data-cite="lazorbeak" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>BHK, it's not surprising you have a lot more nostalgia for the era that took place when you were a kid, but a lot of your complaints are things that have already been addressed by the league. And while the league has expanded the talent pool has also expanded: twenty years ago Drazen Petrovic and Vlade Divac were the rarity, now international players make up a significant amount of the league. And with the rise of the international game and the re-introduction of the zone defense, there's more fundamental skills and team basketball on display today then there's been in 20 years. <p> </p><p> As far as LeBron goes, I don't know, I think Simmons is on to something. I mean, look at Karl Malone. He was listed at 6'9, 250, or one inch taller and the same weight as LeBron. He never won a championship either, but he pushed the Bulls at their strongest, while LeBron's one finals appearance saw him get pummeled by the Spurs. Teams were afraid to play the Jazz: the guy is pretty much single-handedly responsible for Duncan being drafted to the Spurs instead of a team that was actually bad. Malone was just a tough bastard, and despite being smaller than most 4's and 5's in the league he could shut down guys with his strength and athleticism on defense. Considering LeBron is essentially the same size, it's crazy that he isn't known as an interior defender, but he's not. LeBron needed to be the one guarding Garnett when no one else could, and it didn't happen. </p><p> </p><p> But even now that we know that LeBron isn't the next Jordan or Magic, that doesn't mean he can't be a champion. It just means he won't win by being the LeBron James show. He's a beast around the rim, his outside shot is good (but he relies on it too much), he is almost impossible to slow down once he's got a head of steam, and he plays good transition defense. Unfortunately he's less comfortable in the low post on offense or defense than he should be and he has a tendency to turn the ball over too much when playing point. So what he needs is a great low post guy and either a better offensive system or a true point guard. That's why the Bulls make the most sense as a team: they've already got a very good young point guard and Noah brings the defensive toughness that makes teams afraid to face you. </p><p> </p><p> The problem with going to a team that isn't already established like the Nets or the Clippers is it would immediately turn into the LeBron show as surely as the Knicks would. Harris is good but he's not a great true point and his assists are only up to being #10 in the league because he is playing on a team lacking in talent. I mean D-Wade gets that many assists while managing to pull his mediocre team into the playoffs. Harris is good but he's basically just Delonte West without mental problems. And while Lopez's offensive numbers were impressive, he's still green in the post on defense, and the fact that he couldn't average 10 boards a game when his forward help was Yi Jianlian is pretty depressing. </p><p> </p><p> For LeBron to win he needs to be on a team with guys who will motivate him instead of vice versa. Also he has to stop handling the ball so much, unless he wants to push for that quadruple double in turnovers.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> it will be interesting to see where he goes, Nets have young talent (plus a really high pick coming), Bulls have proven players. To Calipri bull crap you will coach Kentucky next year if you could be the next Phil Jackson of the NBA with the Bulls with Lebron, Noah, and your boy Rose</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Buffalo does not even deserve to have a team. Heck I always rag on Patriots fans for not supporting their team when they stunk. However, at least the Patriots fans did start to show up again when the team started to win.<p> </p><p> You can't say that for the Bills fans. In the 1990's they had some of the greatest teams but the fans did not even show up to watch them. Now that they suck they really don't support them.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> eh, Bills fans are die hard and passionate. Remember though they play near a bunch of other teams and Buffalo is a dying city, I remember going up there this year for the Bucs vs Bills and they were pretty full, but the stadium sucks, team is horrible, and it was windy.</p><p> </p><p> Look at the Bucs, they play in what many people call the crown jew of the NFL, they have one of the greatest training facilties in the NFL and they were horrible last year, players don't want to sign here (even though you have all these great things, like those two things and no state income tax) also even with the stadium being a nice as it is, we couldn't draw fans cause we suck</p>

<p>also, I don't ever seeing Packers or Bears getting a new stadium any time soon. There is to much history with them, just like the Garden, Fenway, and Wrigley</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also a big reason why Cowboys got theirs, is the capacity they can sit, AZ because of the design of the stadium.</p><p> </p><p> It's not always about where it is, but the also the look of the stadium.</p><p> </p><p> The last one in Cali was in San Deigo if I am correct, and that's because all their Stadiums are ugly. I had to go to a Seahawks game last year and their Stadium is truly breath taking, but they'll never get a Superbowl. Packers and Bears have History, but open roof Stadiums are a turn off.</p><p> </p><p> The Tribune down here also works with WADE 620 AM and when Tampa had the Superbowl Roger (Comish) was on with Dan Silio talking about the Superbowl and Silio (whose from Connecticut) asked why haven't we had a cold weather game. Roger replied with "We have, we had Detroit a couple years back and Lucas Oil here in a couple". Silio response was "No I mean a real cold game, one where snow might fall, some of the greatest games in history have been played in snow". Roger's response was quick and to the point "Simple, unlike rain, snow provides a different challenge, not just for the players and coaches, but for the fans, they pay hundreds of dollars to watch our game and we want to make sure they are comfortable."</p><p> </p><p> So that could be another reason. But Remi, if New York gets the Superbowl, when I got up there to take notes for the game I get two press passes I'll give you the other <img alt="" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>First, yes. I was at 40 in Detroit, 41 in Miami, 42 in Phoenix, and I'll be at 45 in Dallas. I'm a Broncos fan and typically attend 2-4 home games at Invesco every season (this season was unusual as I got to go to 7 games total, only 3 at Invesco though). Was at both 32 and 33 when my team did the back to back thing.<p> </p><p> And I wish my tickets were only $300. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> I beg to differ. When you as a taxpayer are on the hook for a new stadium that's often priced well beyond your ability to actually go to the damn thing regularly (like the Cathedral of Baseball, for example), it would help if that stadium generated additional revenue to justify its expense. Events like the Super Bowl generate BILLIONS in economic activity, a lot of that in tax revenues (rental car taxes, hotel taxes, etc). And yup, I was at the MLB All-Star Game last year too. I better had been, I helped pay for the damn thing.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Yes and combined, those two places have hosted what, 18 of the 44 Super Bowls to date? Wait, no. Counting the old Tampa Stadium, 24 of the 44 Super Bowls have been held in New Orleans or Florida. MORE THAN HALF. Come on! Indianapolis built a stadium and were immediately awarded a Super Bowl. Now, I dunno if this is apparent but I've been in Indy in February. It's COLD. But Lucas Oil's retractable roof mitigates that.</p><p> </p><p> I'm not casting any aspersions on Florida or New Orleans. What I'm saying is, <em>give someone else a chance</em>. 24 of 44. If they want cold weather cities to build new stadiums, give them the same deal the Cowboys and Colts got. Otherwise, every city that isn't eligible for a Super Bowl should get the Green Bay Packers treatment (read: no one from the league saber rattling about 'the need for updated facilities'). We're not talking about Buffalo here. We're talking the Capital of the World, the largest media market this country has. To quote Dr. Evil, "Throw us a frickin' bone here". Hell, we even built a stadium for the lame ass MLS Red Bulls!</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <strong>I don't know about that. China did in 18-24 months what Greece couldn't do in FIVE YEARS. China's problem was culture shock more than anything else. Shutting down the airports when the opening and closing ceremonies started is something NO nation on the planet would've done. Their infrastructure was done, they built venues from scratch specifically for the events. They didn't even sneeze at the cost</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I meant because they had other problems then infrastructure, IMHO the reason New York gets shafted so much is because of the small area. People don't think of New York the State, they think New York the city. Outside of the city though there is a lot of space, and the Olympics in New York would give teams like Bills, Knicks, Nets, Rangers, etc their new stadiums</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I thought their track record was better than that. Its not bad but its also not great. Then again I remember hearing about how Jr. really revitalized the farm system for NY refocusing on it. In the last few years it looked like they had an entire starting rotation coming up with Joba, Ian, Hughes and somebody else I can't remember. <p> </p><p> The Cardinals have had just off the top of my head. </p><p> </p><p> Danny Haren (2nd in Cy Young voting on two occasions I think)</p><p> Adam Wainwright (3rd in Cy Young voting last year)</p><p> Albert Pujols </p><p> Yadier Molina (argubably the best defensive catcher in baseball)</p><p> Skip Schumaker (.300 hitter over the last four seasons)</p><p> Brendan Ryan (gold glove caliber SS for the last two years)</p><p> Brett Wallace (we traded him for Matt Holliday)</p><p> J.D Drew </p><p> Colby Rasmus (still unproven but A graded minor leaguer and so called five tool player)</p><p> Placido Polanco </p><p> Adam Kennedy </p><p> </p><p> There are other unknown prospects we've traded for guys like Mulder, DeRosa, etc. </p><p> </p><p> As it stands right now this year</p><p> </p><p> C - Molina (farm system)</p><p> 1B - Pujols (farm syste)</p><p> 2B Skip Schumaker - .306 hitter the last 4 yrs he's been on the team (farm system </p><p> SS - Brendan Ryan - 98.5 fielding ptg, .294 hitter last year (farm system)</p><p> 3B - David Freese (rookie year)</p><p> CF - Colby Rasmus (sophmore year) 280 avg, 6 HR (farm system)</p><p> </p><p> Wainwright 5-1 2.08 ERA (farm system)</p><p> Jamie Garcia 4-2, 1.42 ERA</p><p> </p><p> looking at this years numbers so far and realizing that nearly our entire starting team has been taken from our farm system in the last five years is pretty damn impressive.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> that's a go system and most weren't even first 3 round talent</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26724" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Pizza had to be one of the best draft pickups in the history of Baseball in my opinion. I mean for what he turned into and where he was picked, talk about value.<p> </p><p> Maybe as a Yankee fan I see this more than if I were a fan of another team. However, I think the Yankees have been good at finding some gems in the draft over the past twenty years of so. And they have been able to move some of those players for players that they need. All though that trade with Detroit looks like it is going to bite them where the sun don't shine.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> do you remember Buhner lol, but I don't know from 00-07</p><p> </p><p> 2000: Best pick Sean Henn</p><p> 2001: Shelley Duncan</p><p> 2002: Phil Coke</p><p> 2003: Tyler Clippard</p><p> 2004: Phil Hughes</p><p> 2005: Austin Jackson..... oh wait:rolleyes:</p><p> 2006: Joba and Ian (Joba might be your next closer)</p><p> 2007: Can't tell yet</p><p> </p><p> so from the start it was horrible, but you guys have improved</p><p> </p><p> but 97 to 05 (remember Hughes is the only one to make it so far from that 04 draft) has been horrible and most of it is the constant free agents they sign</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Well we can talk about the Pirates in the baseball thread because it bothers me that they are so bad year in and year out and I am not even a fan of them (all though my father is).<p> </p><p> I guess you are right about the NBA being deep right now. I just can't get behind the younger players of today. I mean my favorite player right now is Paul Pierce but besides him I just do not seem to connect with any other players. <strong>Maybe it is the case of the sport passing me by (which has happened to me with the NFL and wrestling for the most part).[/</strong>QUOTE]</p><p> </p><p> who knows, see I love sports, played baseball and football (stopped in high school for football, but played at Tampa U for baseball because it was close to home then the football offers I was getting, like Montclair State, John Hopkins) but I slide into home and shattered my knee cap (clean play, my cleat caught his shin gaurd, very freak play) and so I took up writing and it got me and internship with the Tribune, now I get to go to all the sporting events I want and take notes</p></div></blockquote>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>To me the NBA is starting to look like the NFL and as much as I hate to say this Hockey (Which if there was ever a case to be made for not expanding the NHL would be the perfect example of it). I see what you are saying and you are right people want each team to have a decent shot. <p> </p><p> And I agree with you the NBA right now seems to be something like the NBA of the 1970's. Losing fans and just not a great product to watch. I guess they will need another <strong>Jordan/Bird/Magic </strong>to come along to bring it back out of this funk.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> We kind of have it we have Lebron/Kobe/Wade, not to mention Durant, Howard, Gasol, Nash, Bosh. talent wise you are looking at one of the deepest era in basketball</p><p> </p><p> and parity is a good thing. it's not the same team over and over, how would you feel if every year it was the Lakers, Chicago, and Celtics winning each season, it means if you want to root for a winner and you're from Texas you have to root for someone out of your state.</p><p> </p><p> I read that 89% are home grown fans (root for their cities team), 6% are because of family, 3% because of a past era, and 2% because of a certain player</p><p> </p><p> Now yes other teams can win by drafting and developing, but let's face it.... some stink at it, Clips, Pirates (baseball), Browns. Free agents help even that out and give hope to fans instead of having a team like the pirates who only avg 9,000 fans a game and cant win (baseball will never see parity because of the fact they don't have a cap which is why certain cities can't draw fans)</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Oh I hope this isn't the golden age of basketball, because I have little to no interest in it now.<img alt=":D" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/biggrin.png.929299b4c121f473b0026f3d6e74d189.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Maybe basketball has finally become as watered down as the NFL has. Some call it parity, I call it over expansion.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> lol okay, what I meant to say is this is like the WWE during Attitude ERA, Jordan (like Austin and D-X) started it now it's in it's cool down mode. But parity is what people want, parity makes it equal, so parity is what you get</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="BHK1978" data-cite="BHK1978" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="27836" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Jordan also did not rise to power until after the glory years of the Celtics, Pistons, and Lakers (all though we did beat the Lakers for his first championship).</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> true, but Jordan also probably faced the most even playing field of all-time, he played the Shaq's, Kobe (though not when both were tip top shape), Stockon, Malones, Olajuwon, Barkley, Ewing, he played Isiah, Grant Hill, Jason Kidd, Gary Payton, Ray Allen (younger), Garnett, Iverson.</p><p> </p><p> Celtics were in the tank, Lakers were old, Pistons beat them remember, but then Isiah got hurt.</p><p> </p><p> But he dealt with Jazz, Spurs, Magic (back when Penny and Shaq were together), Knicks, Hawks of early years.</p><p> </p><p> remember we are in a golden age of basketball, where a team can go from a loser to a winner over night (think Cavs with Lebron, C's with two trades and a nice PG draft pick)</p>

<p>My boss and I wake up every morning and do the same routine. We get up, brush our teeth, shave, and get dressed. (He might do his a different way) But he always arrives at Einstein's Bagels at 6:10 every morning (Monday through Friday) we get the same thing, eat, joke around, and have a big laugh. The reason we laugh is simple, it's not what we’re laughing at, rather whom we’re laughing at. We laugh at ESPN columnist, and their form of journalism. We don't believe they are bad writers in the sense, we just think that ESPN makes them right crap sometimes to start up controversy.</p><p> </p><p> Now as we bash on these writers we lay off a few because of the simple fact they are friends or his former co-workers (I am only about two years into this, Joe has about 20 years on me). One guy I know for a fact neither of us know is Bill Simmons, but Joe refuse to comment on Bill (change that, he rather likes Bill's segments) and I could never comprehend why.</p><p> </p><p> Of course that all changed tonight, he emailed me an article Simmons wrote about Lebron and just exactly the type of player he is. I have always thought of Lebron has the best player and while I agreed with most of it, I found myself questioning the part about MJ being this great winner; no not because MJ wasn’t a winner; it was more because Lebron has never had his Pippen. As much as I love MJ, I have always come to question what he would have become without Pippen there to help him (remember, Pippen is a NBA top 50 player as well) would MJ have won 6? Would he have found someone else? Would he ever take a team with no one else on it to a Finals appearance? As I thought about it though I believe Jordan would have found a way, he would have starched and clawed his way to victory, even without Pippen. That’s why we classify Jordan as a Winner</p><p> </p><p> But, for the first time reading something by Simmons..... I actually liked it. He hit the hammer right on the head; in this series Lebron lacked that WOW! factor we all crave from him. He was the best player on the court, playing on the second best team, being out played by the second best player, not by a little I mind you.</p><p> </p><p> What makes MJ, Bill Russell, Kobe, Bird, Johnson, Oscar Robertson, Shaq, Wade, and even the younger guys like Durant and Rose so magical with the ball wasn't the skills. It was their desire to win, and win at all cost (Durant has a little more proving of it but Rose showed us last year). </p><p> </p><p> MJ's father was murdered and he dedicated the rest of his year to winning the title for him.</p><p> </p><p> Kobe was told he wouldn't win a title without Shaq. Then he tore a ligament in his shooting hand's pinky, but he did.</p><p> </p><p> Bill Russell was an 11 time champ.</p><p> </p><p> Bird and Magic battled for years and it was so legendary because neither wanted to taste defeat.</p><p> </p><p> Wade has proven time and time again, when it's the last shot of the game, win or lose he's taking the shot.</p><p> </p><p> That is what sets these men apart from Lebron. Will Lebron bounce back and still win multiple championship rings.... most likely. Will he mature and become a leader..... Who knows? Has his legacy been tarnished at the age of 25 with this and last year’s playoff performance (was shut down twice by a lesser player).... who knows, but he has some work to do.</p><p> </p><p> I hope for Lebron's sake, he stays out of the lime light. Shoots more jump shots and less photo shots this offseason, pumps more iron then pumping up his fortune, becomes more of a leader and less of a diva. For Lebron's sake he'll stay away from the glam of the Knicks, and find a team that already has the talent (Nets yes the Nets, they have talent just need a little something else and Bulls) instead of him and another big free agent and nothing else.</p><p> </p><p> It’s time for Lebron to dedicate himself to basketball and not basketball to Lebron. When was the last time we saw Kobe or Wade in the paper that had nothing to do with basketball? Shaq wasn’t brought in to help Lebron win a championship. Shaq was brought in to teach Lebron how to globalize his own name and just like Shaq he will opt out of his contract and bolt for a fat contract and fame in a place outside of an amusement park state.</p><p> </p><p> For Lebron, it's time to grab a hold of his legacy, and become the legend he wants to be, and not the Marino he's becoming</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also here is the link to that article by Bill Simmons my boss sent me</p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100514&sportCat=nba" rel="external nofollow">http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100514&sportCat=nba</a></p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Remianen" data-cite="Remianen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="26529" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You're crazy. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /><p> </p><p> Yes, let's ignore the fact that the birthplace was not prepared to handle an event of that size. With <strong><em>SEVEN YEARS</em></strong> advance notice, they still couldn't get their act together. And let's not forget the fact that financing their end of hosting the Games almost bankrupted the entire country. VH1 could do a where are they now on Athens. Oh wait, <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2008/0721/p04s01-wogn.html" rel="external nofollow">it's been done already</a>. <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1036373/Abandoned-derelict-covered-graffiti-rubbish-What-left-Athens-9billion-Olympic-glory.html" rel="external nofollow">Two</a> or <a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ro-beijinglegacy082408" rel="external nofollow">three</a> times, in fact.</p><p> </p><p> Nostalgia is all well and good, on top of preparedness. It should be the tiebreaker, not the deciding factor. Not many countries can build world class facilities and have 10,000+ additional hotel rooms online in five to seven years. Let's see how Rio does (London obviously isn't a concern). About the best part of Rio hosting in 2016 is you can buy a condo there now and dump it in 2015 for probably two to three times what you paid for it. Or keep it and rent it out for ridiculous amounts (like the German family in '96 that rented my great-aunt's house in Macon for $9,000 a week).</p><p> </p><p> <strong>And yeah, I know my bitterness is showing</strong>.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> question, if you get the Superbowl are you going? Do you go to home games now (that's more because I want to see the type of fan you are)? I went to the last two (partly because of the press pass) and I talked to people there that paid 300 a ticket for the nose bleed, plus another 10 for the beer, 8 for the dog, and 50 just for a trinket</p><p> </p><p> to me for the avg fan or even the mind blowing fan that barely goes to a game, it shouldn't matter where the Superbowl is played.</p><p> </p><p> Florida and New Orl. are great places for the super bowl because they have day life and night life, plus the fact that RJ is considered one of the top stadiums in the world, Miami has the history and so does NO. Also these three cities rely on tourism and are big service industry econ.</p><p> </p><p> Now once again I am not taking anything away from the Superbowl in New York, I think it'd be a great game, (plus the fact that I wouldn't have to go to it:D) But I think the NFL's biggest worry is the high profile stars who don't want to sit in the cold. I don't get it myself, they're more than willing to have rain fall upon them, but when it comes to the cold weather..... no way jose</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> Also remember how bad China was? Olympics don't care I would assume lol</p>

lmao, they couldn't even find the stadium from the sky I agree with Remi still, with the econ rebounding the superbowl in New York would be a great place (business capital) where millions of people are with tons of night clubs. But the arguement for Miami and Tampa is, warm weather, only whether problem would be rain, and tons of party life as well

I like him a lot (he's a Florida boy ) but I more just want the Magic to win lol

you said they had a decade full of top picks, so I took it as you were saying they hit on all their top picks. and teams don't need top picks to be great, look at players like Crawford, Pedroia, Pujols, Mike Pizza, Kenny Rogers, Roy Oswalt, Dan Uggla, Mike Lowell, Jason Bay. So top picks don't mean a org. will be great, it's the middle where you find the role players and final pieces. But I agree, Rays are a great team right now and are loaded still in the farm system with names like Beckham, McGee, Hellickson, Jennings, Joyce ect. waiting to fill people's shoes, and Tampa still has the number 1 farm system, even after failing to sign their top two picks last year and bringing up their number 1 pitcher and number 4 and 8 prospects in Brignac and Sean Rod.

lol when has he ever been the best SS lmao sorry had to

can you explain that please, it has me confused, are you saying they will be able to rebuild quickly next year or saying it will take a while? and also remember about the rays great draft success has only come recently. New ownership and GM took over in 2005 (offseason, but played a big part in the 04 draft) so now we look at who the first front office drafted names like Upton, Crawford, Huff (a 5th rounder), Shields(16th round), Rocco, Dukes, and Young (Hamilton too if you want) now only 3 remain and only One has been an all-star while Upton tries to find sucess and Shields is getting back to 08 form New Office has found the likes of Niemann, Brignac, Davis, Longoria, Price, made trades for Soriano (closer) Bartlett, and Garza and signed Pena in fact out of 7 drafts the Rays have been apart before the new ownership took over in which we had a first round pick, the rays failed horribly, only collecting three solid everyday starters for themselves and 6 all together, and Huff and Shields wont be apart of this next number because it's top three rounds only and in 1998 we had no picks in the first three rounds (due to free agent signings) and in 2000 no picks in the 2nd,3rd, or 4th so out of 20 picks 2 are still with the Rays and 5 are still playing ball big league ball. The Rays pretty much wasted years of top draft picks because they rushed them to fast or people failed for other reasons (i.e Rocco and Josh H.)

I think Nets would be an awesome choice for Lebron or D-Wade because of their PG,SG, and Center (Lopez) all promising players. Plus they'll have a top 4 pick this year, in a class that is loaded. Lebron as a SF in a line-up the could possibly be Lopez at C/PF, Lebron at SF, then Harris at PG and depending on who they draft, Wall at SG or Lee at SG with Cousin or Favors at the C/PF position with Lopez. Nets could turn their team into a dynasty in just one year if they play their cards right

two interesting articles on ESPN One is about Vince Carter http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=5186144 This one is about Lebron and how he doesn't need Knicks http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/nba/columns/story?columnist=broussard_chris&id=5185810 thought it was funny how he ripped the Knicks, probably wont make remi happy unless he's a nets fan

Twins, Redsox, and Marlins as well. Yes, the soxs spend money in the free agent market, but they also have a mix of their own players paps, dustin, Jacob, Jed Lowire (when he gets healthy), Lester, Buckholtz, just to name a few. Also remember the best SS in the game was trade to the Marlins from the Soxs

Remember the Twins trade away players when they can't resign them, the Rays will do the same, even if the Rays are in first and second they will still listen for offers for Pena and Crawford Also, the Rays became good not just because of a great farm system, but more because they were patience with their talent, they didn't rush Longo to the big show, alongside Niemann, Price, Davis. They let them develop and it has worked nicely for them

I think it'd be cool to see it in New York, I live in Tampa and I want us to win it (for Econ. reasons) but it'd be cool to see some snow in the superbowl. Plus the Jets and Giants are talking about giving handwarmers and other this to keep people warm, and even if it's for one time give it a try and see what happens New York Superbowl, is fine with me

You are right I should have put that part about for you players, but also look at David Lee this year, how do you think the Knicks will handle him If they go out and Sign the likes of Lebron and Bosh/Wade then offer their MLE to someone then sign Lee to his contract it's okay. So they will wait to offer Daivd his contract so they have the room to sign two or three players But if David signs early then his contract counts instantly, plus all the bull crap of you have to have a certain amount of players under contract (no expired) so the NBA doesn't add money to what you are already spending, then you have stuff like Trade Ex. (example) sign and trade Magic and Raptors did last year for Hedo, Magic got nothing but an 8 Million dollar trade ex. where they could package Gortat and his 5.3 million along with that 8 to have 13.3 million to trade for someone (which they probably will because it'd be a waste to let the trade ex. expire and also to keep Gortat and his 5.3 million or Brandon Bass and his 3.3 million sitting on the bench when they are unhappy and want to start) Plus the fact you can make trades when you are over the cap as long as the salaries are within 5% of each other I believe and if Phil went to the Cavs who retained Lebron next year and won a championship, I would see Phil as the coach that got them over the hump, but let's be frank, if he doesn't stay with the Lakers then he isn't coaching next year, I doubt he's going to want to take a team and try to improve their record when he can stay with LA and pretty much know he'll make the Finals (because the west has lost a lot of swagger it once had)