Chicago Bulls: The Starting Two Guard May Not Be the Issue in Chicago

The Chicago Bulls went 62-20 in 2010-11. That was with a starting lineup of Derrick Rose, Carlos Boozer, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng and Keith Bogans.

Wait, Keith Bogans?

Really?

At this point in time, it is no surprise to people that Keith Bogans was the odd ball compared to the rest of the starting rotation, but perhaps he was still the right fit. I do agree that the Bulls need to find another scorer, but should we be so quick to dismiss Bogans as a viable starter for the Bulls?

Remember, this Bulls team went 62-20 with starters Carlos Boozer and Joakim Noah missing a combined 57 games. 57 of 82 is a pretty nice chunk of the season to be missing at least one, and sometimes two of your primary players.

If Noah and Boozer stay healthy next year, not something they have yet to prove over their careers, who knows how well the Bulls could play all season long. Noah has been improving his skills overseas, while Boozer has been relatively quiet on his position since announcing he would explore options.

Either way, I just want to see them healthy because their injuries perhaps cost the Bulls eight or nine wins.

Still, the Bulls managed to win many games while the two were out. Keith Bogans did not miss one game the entire season, making him and Luol Deng (ironic) the only two players to start all 82 games.
Would it be smart to bring back Bogans?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Submit Vote vote to see results

Now, I don't see Bogans being an answer as a scorer, but each player has their function on the team. Bogans is clearly there for his defense and durability. He knew his role last season, and if you ask me, he played it close to perfection. Nobody expected Bogans to come in and score ten points a night, and I am sure he didn't either. Bogans only shot the ball on average four times a game.

I do believe the Bulls will explore all their options once they are able to, and they will have a few roster spots open up. The Bulls starting rotation played perfect last season, and their bench was one of the best in the league.


The Bulls do have to consider their financial decisions when regarding the two spot. Considering the money they just gave Noah, Boozer and Deng a few years ago, the Bulls don't exactly have money to spend.

With that in mind, remember that Rose's contract is up after the 2011-12 season, and I don't expect him to expect anything other then the maximum. A starting caliber free agent may not be the best financial option.

They could explore another scorer, perhaps a solid addition to come off the bench or fill in for starter minutes.

The Bulls could also find an ideal sixth man. They have not had one since Ben Gordon left, so the addition of a guy like Nick Young or O.J. Mayo could fulfill that role well. That would require some sort of trade (or sign and trade with Young) for the Bulls to free up some sort of money for 2012.

Should the Bulls alter their starting five?
Jonathan Daniel/Getty Images

I think the sixth man role is the Bulls' true problem.

Kyle Korver and Ronnie Brewer are not reliable first options off the bench. They are great players, but they are not immediate impact players like Ben Gordon was night in and night out.

The Chicago Bulls should consider not damaging the chemistry within their starting rotation, but rather build a new threat to fit between the starters and the bench mob.

The Bulls have a good thing going with their set rotations, so just remember this: You shouldn't fix what is not broken.

Facebook’s revenue soared to US$1.6 billion in the first half of 2011.

The social networking giant posted net income of $500 million in the first half of 2011, according to “a source with knowledge of its financials.” Facebook has taken its user base to a whopping 750 million and has established itself as one of the biggest players in the display advertising world, TAKING one-third of all impressions served in the U.S. (more than Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, and AOL together).
The company founded by Mark Zuckerberg out of his dorm room in 2004 has grown into one of the internet’s most formidable firms. While its finances aren’t publicly known, information has occasionally made its way out.

Earlier this year, Goldman Sachs prepared a private share offering of Facebook to its clients, distributing some of the social network’s financial information. Those documents suggest Facebook earned $433 million on $1.2 billion in revenues during the first 9 months of 2010. While quarterly figures weren’t released, assuming Facebook’s sales were equal in every quarter, the social network made 800 million in the first two quarters of 2010. (Read Goldman Sachs Limits Facebook Share Offer To ‘Offshore’ Investors, Fears Breaking U.S. Law).


Goldman itself invested in Facebook, giving it an unofficial Wall Street-stamp of approval and a valuation of about $50 billion. Shares in Facebook trade on secondary markets where the valuation has been pushed above $80 billion. Markets expect Facebook to go public in the short-term, as its ever-rising number of shareholders puts pressure on regulators to ask management to release more financial information. The SEC requires any company with more than 500 shareholders to disclose its finances. (Read JPMorgan Starts ‘Social Media Fund’ To Invest In Twitter, Facebook, Other Public Companies).



Reuters cites sources expecting Facebook to go public in 2012. Facebook, which declined to comment, is facing increased competition from Google in the social sphere. The search-giant recently released Google+ which reportedly added more than 10 million members in its first two weeks to become the world’s fastest growing social network.


If the recent report is true, Facebook is proving that it is increasingly better at monetizing the opportunities it has made for itself, as Zuckerberg prepares his company to dispute the Google’s claim to the Internet’s number one spot.

Cowboys most valuable NFL franchise

The Dallas Cowboys are the NFL's most valuable franchise at $1.85 billion, according to Forbes magazine's annual survey.

That also gives the Cowboys the highest worth of any U.S. team, and makes them second only to Manchester United of the English Premier League, valued at $1.9 billion, among franchises worldwide.

The New York Yankees are worth $1.7 billion, according to Forbes' most recent baseball calculations.

More on the Cowboys

Calvin Watkins, Tim MacMahon and Todd Archer have the Dallas Cowboys blanketed for ESPN Dallas. Blog
Cowboys Center
ESPN Dallas » Hot Button »


Following the Cowboys in value among NFL teams are the Washington Redskins ($1.55 billion), New England Patriots ($1.4 billion), New York Giants ($1.3 billion) and New York Jets ($1.223 billion).

Altogether, 15 teams are worth $1 billion; the others are Houston, Philadelphia, Chicago, Green Bay, Baltimore, Indianapolis, Denver, Pittsburgh, Miami and Carolina.

The survey is based on the 2010 season. Team values are through this year's lockout, but total revenues and profits are not.

Dallas' value increased 2 percent from last year's rankings. The biggest jump was made by the Giants, up 10 percent, after they moved into their new stadium in 2010. The Jets, who share that stadium with the Giants, were up 7 percent, as were the Super Bowl champion Packers, who are community-owned, and the San Francisco 49ers.

Eighteen teams increased in value, five remained the same -- including the Redskins -- and nine decreased in worth. Coincidentally, the biggest drop was made by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (5 percent), who are owned by the Glazer family that also owns Manchester United.

Least in value, Forbes reports, are the Jacksonville Jaguars ($725 million).

The average team value is $1.036 billion.

Dallas also had the highest revenues, $406 million, well ahead of Washington at $352 million. Lowest was Oakland at $217 million.

The Cowboys also led with $119 million in operating income, followed by Washington with $65.6 million. Two teams had negative operating income, Detroit (minus $7.7 million) and Cleveland (minus $2.9 million).


Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press

Eddie Murphy go to the Oscars 2012

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that the coveted, highly anticipated host of the 2012 Oscars will be comedian and actor Eddie Murphy. Now this is not an easy gig.

Last year, the Academy tried to make the telecast more youthful by having young Hollywood superstars Anne Hathaway and James Franco co-host – a decision critics bashed after the show fell flat and Franco seemed to show a lack of interest in his hosting gig.

Now the Academy is putting its faith in Eddie Murphy, who also follows in the footsteps of past comedian/entertainer hosts like Bob Hope, Whoopi Goldberg and Steve Martin.


So far, it seems like Hollywood is on board with Eddie too. I caught up with Whoopi at the season premiere of “The View” and she thinks Eddie would be a great choice. She says, “You have to have a funny person. You have to have somebody that loves the movies, you have to have somebody who’s engaged and I think Eddie is engaged. He knows our business, he gets what the audience is like… I love the idea of Eddie Murphy.”

"Showbiz Tonight" also caught up with actor Nick Nolte (Murphy’s co-star in their classic flick “48 Hours”) at the premiere of Nolte’s new film “Warrior” and he also thinks Murphy is a great choice. “He's going to be great,” Nolte says. “You know with Eddie, it’s a pure genius. You just don't know what he's going to bring. He'll bring a lot of humor. A lot of fun to it."

I think Eddie’s got the right personality for this gig and he should be great. The question is though, is he relevant enough to draw in viewers? Although Murphy used to star in many hit movies, his biggest recent role has been “Donkey” in the “Shrek” films, although Eddie was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for “Dreamgirls” back in 2006.

What do you think of Eddie Murphy as this year’s Oscar host – is it a great choice or a terrible choice? Post below and join us tonight for this debate at 11 p.m. ET/PT on HLN.

Obama's jobs plan to reflect his more modest ambition

Reporting from Washington— When he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama made a prediction breathtaking in its ambition: Americans would look back at that night in Denver as the moment when "the planet began to heal" and the country began to provide "good jobs to the jobless."

Obama will deliver another speech to the nation Thursday, with his sights significantly lower and the scope sharply curtailed.

He'll roll out a new plan to revive the economy: a mix of tax credits and targeted spending increases for school renovation and job training amounting to about $300 billion. Obama bills it as a sensible proposal that Republicans could conceivably endorse.

Some economists familiar with the plan believe it could move the needle on unemployment over the next few months.

If Congress rejects it, some of Obama's aides believe it could move the political needle in their direction. A defeated plan, they hope, could become a political trap for Republicans, allowing Obama to portray the GOP as so intent on foiling the White House that they would sabotage economic progress.

"The president will present a meaningful, responsible set of ideas to create jobs and grow the economy," a senior White House advisor said. "The Republican Congress will have a choice whether they're going to work with the president to achieve those goals or play politics. If they choose to play politics, the president will go to the country and explain who's stopping progress and why."

But in either case — as an economic proposal that might improve the jobs outlook or as a political stratagem that might help his reelection effort — Thursday's speech is a long step from the vaulting ambitions that accompanied Obama's rise.

That shift underscores the extent to which his options have narrowed.

Obama can't run for reelection as a transformational president: The country has lost nearly 2.5 million jobs in the last three years and unemployment stands at 9.1%. His healthcare overhaul could be undone by the courts before it even fully takes effect.

Nor can he come out with a proposal that would make a major dent in unemployment right away. That would require another round of stimulus, a dirty word in today's political vocabulary.

So he's left with a jobs plan of modest proportions whose chief political value is that Republicans might look obstinate for opposing it.

But Republicans see Obama's moves as signs of weak leadership. A once-audacious politician now looks timid in the face of wrenching crises, Republicans contend.

"His campaign back in 2008 sold everyone this grand theory of a transformational presidency," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who worked for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that year. "But what we're left with right now is just a conventional politician doing whatever it takes to get himself reelected."

But the low-key pragmatism that the White House has attempted to follow — searching for proposals that just might win Republican support — also angers many Democratic loyalists. They say that in the face of divided government, Obama isn't aiming high enough.

Many Democrats expect Republicans to oppose Obama no matter what he does, so they'd prefer that he demand a plan that would take a bolder approach to creating jobs. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), in a conversation earlier in the week with White House Chief of Staff William Daley, gave a football analogy. If the player is going to get a penalty no matter what he does, why not deliver a hard hit?

"The president's going to get hit when he introduces his proposal," Cleaver said, recounting the conversation, "so he might as well introduce something big and impactful, because they're going to come after him anyway."

Cleaver also said the president must campaign hard for the package and take the fight directly to Republicans.

On that point, Obama may accommodate. Less than 24 hours after his speech, he'll talk up the new jobs plan in Richmond, Va., the political turf of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

White House officials maintain that the president didn't hold back on his proposal. Obama crafted a practical plan not hemmed in by political considerations, said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

Reporting from Washington— When he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama made a prediction breathtaking in its ambition: Americans would look back at that night in Denver as the moment when "the planet began to heal" and the country began to provide "good jobs to the jobless."

Obama will deliver another speech to the nation Thursday, with his sights significantly lower and the scope sharply curtailed.

He'll roll out a new plan to revive the economy: a mix of tax credits and targeted spending increases for school renovation and job training amounting to about $300 billion. Obama bills it as a sensible proposal that Republicans could conceivably endorse.

Some economists familiar with the plan believe it could move the needle on unemployment over the next few months.

If Congress rejects it, some of Obama's aides believe it could move the political needle in their direction. A defeated plan, they hope, could become a political trap for Republicans, allowing Obama to portray the GOP as so intent on foiling the White House that they would sabotage economic progress.

"The president will present a meaningful, responsible set of ideas to create jobs and grow the economy," a senior White House advisor said. "The Republican Congress will have a choice whether they're going to work with the president to achieve those goals or play politics. If they choose to play politics, the president will go to the country and explain who's stopping progress and why."

But in either case — as an economic proposal that might improve the jobs outlook or as a political stratagem that might help his reelection effort — Thursday's speech is a long step from the vaulting ambitions that accompanied Obama's rise.

That shift underscores the extent to which his options have narrowed.

Obama can't run for reelection as a transformational president: The country has lost nearly 2.5 million jobs in the last three years and unemployment stands at 9.1%. His healthcare overhaul could be undone by the courts before it even fully takes effect.

Nor can he come out with a proposal that would make a major dent in unemployment right away. That would require another round of stimulus, a dirty word in today's political vocabulary.

So he's left with a jobs plan of modest proportions whose chief political value is that Republicans might look obstinate for opposing it.

But Republicans see Obama's moves as signs of weak leadership. A once-audacious politician now looks timid in the face of wrenching crises, Republicans contend.

"His campaign back in 2008 sold everyone this grand theory of a transformational presidency," said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist who worked for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney that year. "But what we're left with right now is just a conventional politician doing whatever it takes to get himself reelected."

But the low-key pragmatism that the White House has attempted to follow — searching for proposals that just might win Republican support — also angers many Democratic loyalists. They say that in the face of divided government, Obama isn't aiming high enough.

Many Democrats expect Republicans to oppose Obama no matter what he does, so they'd prefer that he demand a plan that would take a bolder approach to creating jobs. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II (D-Mo.), in a conversation earlier in the week with White House Chief of Staff William Daley, gave a football analogy. If the player is going to get a penalty no matter what he does, why not deliver a hard hit?

"The president's going to get hit when he introduces his proposal," Cleaver said, recounting the conversation, "so he might as well introduce something big and impactful, because they're going to come after him anyway."

Cleaver also said the president must campaign hard for the package and take the fight directly to Republicans.

On that point, Obama may accommodate. Less than 24 hours after his speech, he'll talk up the new jobs plan in Richmond, Va., the political turf of Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

White House officials maintain that the president didn't hold back on his proposal. Obama crafted a practical plan not hemmed in by political considerations, said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.


Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

Foo Fighters And Katy Perry Pay Tribute To Mercury

Rockers Foo Fighters and singer Katy Perry have recorded special video messages paying tribute to late Queen frontman Freddie Mercury to mark what would have been his 65th birthday.

 The singing legend, who died in 1991, would have turned the landmark age on Monday (05Sep11), and to mark the special day, musicians from pop and rock grouped together to leave personal online thanks to the flamboyant icon.

 In her tribute on YouTube.com, Perry says, "You've inspired us all and you've inspired me especially. Without you I wouldn't be making music or doing what I do."

 My Chemical Romance star Gerard Way calls Mercury "the most important frontman to (me when I was) growing up as little boy", and Foo Fighters drummer Taylor Hawkins adds in his clip, "Freddie, we miss you and love you. I owe you everything, you were the first (performer in) concert I ever saw and since then I've been chasing the dream. I owe that to you."

 Other stars who marked Mercury's birthday include Fall Out Boy's Patrick Stump, who said he was "sorry (Mercury) was not still around to see the profound effect (he) has had on pop music".

 British stars including Brian May and his Queen bandmate Roger Taylor, singer Nicola Roberts and British royals Princess Beatrice and sister Eugenie marked Mercury's birthday at a bash at London's posh Savoy Hotel on Monday night.

 The celebrities wore a moustache in tribute to the rocker as they were treated to comedy and music throughout the evening.

 Mercury died aged 45 of Aids-related pneumonia.

Contactmusic

'Apollo 18' likely to disappoint fans of 'Paranormal'

Im not sure how I got it in my head that the new film "Apollo 18" was made by the same people who made "Paranormal Activity" 1 and 2. I guess it must have had to do with the fact that it kind of looked like "Paranormal Activity:" In Space. Regardless, I rather enjoyed the "Paranormal Activity" films, which is why I decided to go see "Apollo 18". (That, and I could not pass up the opportunity to take my mother – who lives alone when I'm at school – to see a film that would likely scare the bejeezus out of her on her "29th" birthday.)

Continuing in the fashion of the "Paranormal Activity" films, "Apollo 18" presents faux documentary-style footage that had recently been "discovered" and leaked online at the website, lunartruth.com. This "file footage" sets the premise that, contrary to official NASA reports, an 18th manned rocket was sent to the moon after the scrubbing of the Apollo space program. Also, like the PA 1 and 2, the cast was very small and only included actors that would not be easily recognizable by the audience. (Unfortunately, for them, however, the "Human IMDB" Chancellor Mills was in the theater and immediately recognized two of the three stars.)

Despite some of these similarities, Apollo 18 fell a bit short for me in some ways. For instance, the film was very short at only about 87 minutes but FELT very long because of the agonizingly slow pace. I would say it was a good third of the way into the film before anything out of the ordinary starts happening, and even when weird stuff starts happening, it's nothing more than just a few rocks rolling around on the surface of the moon. The pace does pick up steam after that, but nothing really exciting occurs until probably the last 30 minutes.

I can't really say too much more about the plot without completely ruining it for whoever is reading this, but what I will say is that the alien monster of this film is actually multiple rocks that turn into little spiders. And, while you may be thinking to yourself that this is not that scary, I'm here to tell you that it's definitely not. It's also not as creepy as the Paranormal films because all of the scary stuff is happening in space, and we do not live in space. Fact. However, "Apollo 18" does make a half-hearted attempt to bring the threat home by saying that a few hundred pounds of moon rocks had been brought to Earth and given out as gifts to foreign nations and had since gone missing or been stolen. (As in, they were given as gifts, turned back into space spiders and have been living among us like Transformers for the last 40 years.)

Perry wins top award at VMAs, but Beyonce baby tops show

Beyoncé made a pseudo-announcement before the show even got started, making the universal baby bump symbol on MTV's black carpet and thus sending Twitter into a giant baby name brainstorming session. Ever the perfectionist, she used her VMA performance to ensure that the media and her fans understood the message she was trying to send. "Tonight I want you to stand up on your feet, I want you to feel the love that's growing inside of me," she said, as the music for "Love On Top" began behind her. She killed the song—even Adele approved—moving through each key change, and focusing more on her vocals than navigating any elaborate set design or executing complicated choreography. We were already exploding in cheers of approval when she dropped the mic at the end of the song, as if there's any other appropriate way for her to finish, but the subsequent removal of her sequins jacket, giant belly rub and goofy grin made it extremely clear that yes, she's pregnant! The crowd roared with approval while the camera quickly cut to Jay-Z in the front row, smiling proudly and getting many a shoulder rub by Kanye West, who was about to run out for cigars and champagne. What beef? Uncle Kanye is ready and waiting for his Godfather duties to begin.

It's a bold move for any star to take the spotlight of an award show away from the house crowd and point it directly on his or herself. And even though giving Britney Spears the Lifetime Achievement Award was just a ruse to get a famous person to introduce her—again, no host!—we see nothing wrong with Bey and Jay's Public Display of Pregnancy. For a couple that's generally so professional they verge on boring, B's mic drop and belly rub felt like a communal baby shower we were all invited to, allowing us to share the good news with the couple and let West's reactions act as the embodiment of our collective joy. Sure your privacy is precious, but fans only pester who with questions/stalk you home because they care. So welcome little Bey-Z, Jay-once! There's no question that you are already the most popular kid in school.