PeterMP

The surface is heating. That would seem to be a start. And I know that I expect CO2 to increase the heat into the system. Do you have some mechanism by which some of that heat wouldn't be transferred to the oceans? As far as I know there is no magic barrier between the atmosphere and the oceans that prevents the transfer of heat. Do you know of one? There is a lot of good basic thermodynamic studies about heat transfer between water based solutions and the surrounding environment, and I don't know a single one that says it wont' happen. And the same thing with respect to layers of the ocean. Is there a magic barrier between at the meddies that protect them from being heated? Because that would be big news.

So heating up the ocean isn't climate change? I mean right, your posting that huge eddies form in the ocean and distribute heat through the system, and then trying to claim that heating that water up won't affect the climate. How does that make any sense? How is that a mechanism? CO2 absorbs heat. It reflects energy that would have escaped to space back to the Earth. More CO2 means more of that reflected heat. That's a mechanism. You've got well if we assume X, Y, and Z, then maybe A will (or won't happen). Do you really not see the difference? (I'll point out in terms advantage/disadvantage, I've said here before, that I think long term it really is probably a coin flip sort of situation as to whether or not climate change is good for humans, but short term human society is an evolved thing and in the short term changes in the environment do not tend to benefit the currently best evolved entity (e.g. the USA in the current system) so I suspect short term, especially if we continue to do nothing at all, there will be a substantial cost to us.)

It provides a mechanism by which dumpling lot's of CO2 in the atmosphere is likely to cause the climate to change. Can you provide a mechanism by which we'd dump lot's of CO2 into the atmosphere and the climate would NOT change?

I've said from the start, I'd trade Kyrie before Wiggins. I think Wiggins is very likely to be a much better fit with Lebron than Kyrie. I also think I can get another guard that has a little bit of handle and can shoot really well and so play off the ball better with Lebron, then I can find a premier perimeter/transition defensive player, which I think Wiggins can become pretty quickly.

I did a little modelling for a political party several years ago (the McCain/Obama election) as a consultant. Politicians/election modellers love people that don't vote. You can completely ignore them. I honestly believe if the two major parties had their way, they'd have every election decided by 3 people (realistically, they'd like to have it decided by one person that they knew was going to vote for them, but the simplest model they could both agree on would be 3 people). One they were sure would vote for them, one they knew that would vote for the other guy, and third that wasn't sure. All they have to do is figure out what the unsure guy doesn't like about the other candidate or the person that is going to vote for the other candidate and they'd win. Go vote. Vote a mixed ticket. Randomly select names. Vote for people that have no chance of winning. Write somebody in. Nothing scares the major political parties more than somebody that is hard to predict and/or hard influence.

I'll point as I have done for years, the science that says the basic science that supports CO2 has a green house gas and therefore will cause changes in the climate goes back hundreds of years to a famous chemist called Arrhenius and that science essentially stand unrefuted.

This is an argument for efforts to (aggressively) mitigate the likely results of climate change. If you don't think everybody else is going to do things about climate change in effective manner, then it would only make sense to start doing things to deal with the likely results. There are various things that could be done in terms of land use issues that many environmentalists would actually eagerly support. Things like limiting growth along water and protecting and even increasing wet lands and flood plains. Better water management practices in many parts of the country will be needed too. Generally, those are all things that environmentalists support. But those things are anti-Republican too. There doesn't seem to be a single thing that the vast majority of elected Republicans seem like they can actually propose with respect to climate change, other than provide excuses. If the Republican party stepped forward and said, this is an issue, but realistically we can't change the whole world so this is likely to happen no matter what we do, but here are 4 things we support doing that potentially will help mitigate the effects in the US based on the current science, the conversation in this thread (and the climate change conversation in general) would be very different. **EDIT** On a side note, last year was the warmest year on record not associated with an El Nino (where El Nino years are normally warmer). This year is going to be even warmer. May and June were the warmest May and June on record, and while El Nino appears as if it is trying to form (and is probably contributing to the recent hot months), we still don't have an El Nino. We went through a lull where the solar cycle was low (and is still low as compared to previous solar cycles), but we are reaching the peak of this solar cycle if we couple that in the next few years to a good El Nino, we are going to have a scorcher of a year (assuming no counter affecting things like massive volcano eruptions).

The other thing is basketball is about match ups. A Gasol, Noah, Love line up might have issues matching up, but teams would have issues matching up with them. I could see that being a very effective line up against units without an offensive minded 3 (especially a unit w/o a good perimeter shooting 3).

The other things is if you believe in your scouting, you might be able to get a "discount" over a team that doesn't have as good scouting and that is less likely the more they see the player play. If there is somebody on the Cavs that you think can/is better than the Cavs do currently that advantage is going to go away the more the Cavs see the player play. If your scouts tell you that Wiggins is going to be a top 5 player and they are right, if the Cavs have not currently come to the same conclusion (i.e. they are wrong about how good he is going to be), as they see him play, they are more likely to come to the right assessment. And if the Cavs come out and play well with Wiggins, he might come off the table.

There was a discussion here before of McDermott, and I said I don't have any problem believing that he deserved to be a lottery pick assuming he stays healthy, and I think he'll easily be better than Fedderette (he's taller), and Morrison even if Morrison had stayed healthy (he's realistically a better spot up shooter and can be more productive without the ball in his hand). I think Kyle Korver is his floor if he stays healthy.. I also have no problem believing that he'll be a productive offensive player pretty much right away and so maybe even when you take into account defense a better player than Wiggins. But I'm not sure that team is a play off team in the West, and I certainly don't think there's an easy/obvious way to get from that team to a championship level team. The only way I make that trade is if I'm Minnesota is if I'm willing to go into tank mode and can "sell" off some of the individual pieces for picks than I can Love (it might make sense to keep McDermott). From Chicago's stand point, I'd at least consider it. I'd worry about team speed and (transition) defense.

Yes, and if you have the ball in your hand that much, you are going to make some assists. That's the reason you look at the ratio. And if you look, at the ratios, you'd see the difference between those guys and Wall. For example, in both years that Nash lead the league in TOs, he had almost 900 assists and had an assist/TO of over 3 (compared to 2.44 for Wall). But I generally agree, Wall is a better floor general than Irving. The difference just isn't as large as you get by looking only at assist.

I can find off the ball shooters even than I can find good defensive perimeter players. People like Ray Allen and Miller are still FAs. Who is the top perimeter defender FA? And I have an elite shooter at PF (with Love), which diminishes my need for it at other positions. The other thing that is that offensive and defensive work load balance out. If I expect less out of Lebron on the defensive side, then he can do less on the offensive side, and I expect his defense to slip before his offense. How fast (and even if) Wiggins can become a good defender I think is a realistic question, but back to my original point, that's where the Cavs have to have done their work in terms of scouting Wiggins as a person and player. But based on what I know, I'd be more willing to ship Irvings plus something than what I've heard the T-wolves are interested in terms of a Wiggins trade.

I don't honestly think either one is much better than the other for it really to be an argument. Wall has more assists than Irving, but he also lead the league in turn overs. The assist/TO ratio is 2.28 to 2.44 in favor of Wall. Wall is a better play maker, but not to the level that just looking at assist would suggest. Irving is a better shooter. I'd say that Wall is a slightly better defender, but neither of them are worth making a big deal for. I would trade Irving for Love before I traded Wiggins. I'd trade Irving for Love and throw in something else. I'd rather have the ball in Lebron's hand than Irving and Irving likes to have the ball in his hand. I think Wiggins' (likely) high impact perimeter and transition D has more value when coupled with Lebron than Irving does. I'd deal with the position issue where Lebron realistically has a lot of flexibility as to what position he plays (and realistically so does Wiggins I suspect).

I'd likely be more willing to trade Irving for Love before I do Wiggins. I think in the modern NBA positions, especially with somebody like Lebron are over rated. Irving is primarily a ball handling play maker and so is Lebron. I'd rather have somebody that I think can be an elite perimeter defender to pair Lebron with than a ball handling player maker.

stevemcqueen1, Well, you have to evaluate Wiggins and Bennett realistically. And if you are right, then they should probably make the trade. I'm just not really comfortable doing it based on the amount I've seen them. The Cavs have talked to these guys a ton, and the current management team has now even seen them play/practice. They have to make the decision, but to me it isn't a no brainer. I think people are under estimating how good Bosh is in this thread. I have not idea what people are doing suggesting that he's gotten significantly worse. I agree that Love, Irving and Lebron is better than Wade, Bosh, and Lebron. But I'm not sure it is good enough. They are clearly lacking a close out defender and reliable rim protector. Can they win the east? sure Can they win a championship, I'm not sure.

I think the Cavs really need to consider NOT making the Love trade. Are you going to be able to have the depth/diversity with a Irving, Love, and Lebron max deals team to be really great? Wiggins is potentially going to be cheap compared the equivalent depth/role player on a comparable team. And the same with Bennett. The only way I make the trade is if I don't think that between Wiggins and Bennet, I don't have a future top 5 NBA player and/or a combination of two top 15 NBA players. Now, things change some if Love is willing to give me a discount. The other thing I'd consider if I was the Cavs is a Love for Irving trade. I think on a max deal Irving's being over paid. And you wouldn't be giving up young cheap assets.

Good grief, what happened in this thread? Can we all agree we get to see how good of a coach Spo is this year?

So seriously what happens to Wade now? The idea sort of was that Miami had brokered a deal with him that he'd opt out and then they'd give him a longer term deal that would give him about the same amount of money. But there is no way I'd give him a longer term deal now.

I read a little about this when it was brought up before. I don't understand everything there, but what I do know is that the FAs (Wade, Bosh, Lebron, and Haslam) do affect Miami's cap, and at some level count against the cap. I believe the term is a "cap hold". There is a "cap hold" on Miami's spending due to the Bird rights of Wade, Bosh, Lebron, and Haslam. Miami can't go out and sign a bunch of other players so that they are at the NBA cap, and then resign those 4 players to whatever they want (ignoring the tax implications) because of the cap hold each of those players have on the Miami cap. You can renounce your Bird rights, which would remove the cap hold and free up more money for Miami to spend, and I think the player has to do it (but I could be wrong). But I'm pretty sure that has implications in terms of resigning them and the cap (i.e. I believe then resigning them counts fully against the cap), which would make actually resigning them all very difficult.

Can't the Heat give them all max deals and still sign reasonable FAs if they are willing to pay the tax? Bird rights apply to all of them. So him saying he wants a max deal isn't really an indication that he wants them to play for less. That's up to how much the Heat are willing to pay in terms of the tax. Right? Though there is no way Wade is getting a full contract max deal. Bosh probably can.

The owners actually seem to care a lot.

It would count against the tax, but not the cap.

Sixers are already planning on tanking for next year too.

I think it is largely driven by the amount of money they make as well as advances in medical care. They make so much off endorsements and contracts that things like long term contracts in terms of security aren't really relevant. Lebron can opt out of his contract because the security of those years in terms of the money he knows he'll make if he opts in or even gives up some money to sign with another team is largely irrelevant because he's already made so much money. And for players like Lebron, long term contracts in terms of security and the difference between what the Heat and other teams can pay him is not very meaningful. Either way, he'll essentially have enough money to do whatever he wants with the rest of his life unless he does some real bad investing.

I wouldn't put a time limit on it in terms of something like that. Just to make up something pretty extreme, let's say he goes to the Sixers and with the incorporating the young players, they aren't a finals level team in the next 2 years, but then win 3 championships in a row, I think history judges him pretty well. I do think over all he's got to be judged based on the decision, even if it is to return to the Heat, its his decision. With respect to the broader point, let's imagine Oden's knees were much better then they were and anybody could imagine, and he is a some what dominant player (not a Shaq, but a legitimate starting NBA center) in the middle (he starts over Birdman when they want to start a true 5). With that sort of player in the middle, they are able to beat the Spurs. What does that really say about Lebron? He had nothing to do with Oden's knees or signing him.