Chisoxfn

WOJ indicating Bulls are looking to hire Pat COnnelly (former Suns Asst. GM). I think he is the brother of his former Boss in Denver. Not sure what role.

This is exciting.

I have that view and there have been a lot of rumblings in California that some of the heavy flu cases may in fact have been early COVID cases in California. Stanford has some researchers digging into it.

Agree with everything you say. It is also why if I am the Bears, regardless of my needs on the oline, etc, I know I need some upgrades at the skill position front and this is the draft to attack those upgrades. I hope we see them get a veteran olinemen / safety, which kind of enables them to go BPA in the draft (which would line up to potentially 1-2 wideouts + 1 young TE (Claypool?).

It is a fair point...but he still had to manage Kyrie (not that it is easy).

I would be 100% okay with that.

Jim - You might be right, but I think there are probably other industries / sectors that have been more severely battered who might be better long-term ploys. When you look at how devalued Oil is, LT, we still have major needs there and as long as you are staying away from those with heavy exposure to Shale, you will do good (I think). Just don't bet on one individual company, go more broad / be diversified. There are some strong financial giants who have been severely hit and are trading well below 08/09 crisis type returns (and they are extremely well capitalized to weather the storm, pay solid dividends, and generate good returns as the economy normalizes). And than on the infrastructure front, I think long term there are going to be some good investments in that sector. I would never worry about finding the bottom in times like this, rather try and do some dollar cost averaging while macro prices are low (as long as you can hold for the long). The volatility is not done and while I'm never certain, I would suspect we have more bad days to come. The economy is going to shrink 25% in the 2nd quarter and I think we are going to see pockets of reinfection during the course of 2020 (I hope not...but I suspect we will) and I don't know that current markets reflect those things. Pick and choose those sectors you like LT but low cost index funds aren't bad either (I always think betting on the LT economy of the US is the best bet you can make...because if we are wrong...well we got way bigger fish to fry). All that said, even if you buy today (and I think prices are probably headed more down near term than up...but I would have said that a week ago and have been dead wrong cause I didn't see this big of a dead cat bounce coming)...you are still getting a LT value when everything bounces up. I never worry of did I buy @ 30% down vs. 20% down. I'm just happy I got some of that down...because if you time a few of those in the general vicinity (and for me it is always about going in...more than timing the out because I always think you have more risk when you try and time the out...because at that point...you miss out on the LT of what the equities are going to do for your accumulation). An investor that sits on cash is inherently going to lose over the long-run (too many times will you false time a "bottom" and miss on extended gains which are necessary for the time you never see the bottom and take a pretty immediate 20-30% beating (and those just flat out will happen). All of this of course has to align with each individuals appetite for volatility and near term needs for the funds they are investing. The more near term needs you have, the much more different and risk averse your portfolio needs to be (but you also need to really challenge what those "near-term" needs are...because if you can better protect your near term than you can be more aggressive during scarier times and in the long-run, your retirement will thank you (This last bit is probably less advice for you Jim since you are much closer to retirement but where you have pensions / other guarantees those are things you have to contemplate when you evaluate your overall exposure to risk/equities...i.e., if you already can get 60-70% of your income covered through fixed streams, you may want to be more aggressive with your equity assets knowing you could bunker down and cut your spend/liquidity for 2-3 years (if things really good rough) for the long term good of your retirement portfolio. Also...I will have a counter to Mike's point on target date funds. If you aren't going to regularly check your 401k's, etc, a target date fund is absolutely better than what the general public will individual pick and manage to. Target dates outperform individuals 401k's by a large margin, so for some people, a target date fund is the absolute right investment choice (given their risk tolerances, knowledge of the markets, and appetite for trading on a more regular basis). Just look at the few of those funds. Vanguard has some really good, cost effective target date funds that are naturally going to manage your risks and shift exposures over time. And for those that think you should only be equities....a big reminder there is if you are inherently in equities vs. more mixed, you have very little downside buffer when the market bombs. Meaning...everything you had dropped...which is fine and it will return, but if you had some fixed income in there, you could actually leverage the safety and the lower drop you had and more strategically shift your portfolio into equities following that drop, generate higher returns on the bounce back, and than rebalance your portfolio. I.e., having some fixed income hedges some of your downside, while minimally chewing into your LT returns (if you do nothing), and, depending on your appetite, can help you be a buyer of discounted risk when times are tight. PS: None of the above constitutes as any financial advice. Everyone needs to analyze what is individually best for them, based upon their own financial perspective, short-term and long-term goals, and of course their risk appetites, etc.

If the fed and government is able to do things right...we will see a massive infrastructure package (leveraged on extremely cheap money/debt) and what begun as a rocky start to the decade will turn into a giant economic success that drives significant growth throughout the 2020's. It will get people back to work fast, strengthen legacy infrastructure that needs to be built up, and better prepare our nation for the future (while also ensuring we re-evaluate global supply chains to ensure we don't have sole dependency on various geographic regions (and by the way...that also includes not having sole dependency on the US....because if we are the start of the next pandemic...it sure would be nice to have other countries and regions and friends to be able to help us when everyone shuts down borders more rapidly). The new norm is going to include a lot more isolated shutdowns and more robust medical checking and sharing of all of these things. It might take a few years to develop but a whole new infrastructure will be created to try and more greatly reduce the risk of global mass pandemic (although we all know you can never stop it). The problem in all of this is, our politicians don't work together. What we really need is a mass exodus of the extremist on both sides and a huge shift to the middle (and I doubt that happens anytime soon)...which means we'll have continued flat out obstructionism on both sides (What Dems want....Repubs will find every way to road block and vice versa).

Joerger would be a pretty good hire. Did a nice job at Memphis and was turning the Kings around (which is hard to do). If they opt for current available former head coaches, I think I have him above Atkinson, who had 1 really good season out of 3 and than lost his team in year 4.

I would have liked Cooks. I still go back to, it is too bad Pace mortgaged so much draft capital. Would have been great to be able to be more aggressive in situations like this. That said, Cooks is such an injury risk (given the concussions) that I'm surprised he went for a 2nd round pick (net net...Houston got a 4th back, so call it a 3rd rounder for Cooks).

Hypertension is one of the comorbidities and if you think about that alone, you probably have more men with hypertension than women (I have not actually looked that up, but someone can certainly fact check me on that).

Just want to point out, people need to be careful of everything they read. A lot of views that this is because the testing was faulty / inaccurate to begin with vs. "reactivation". In general the failure rate on the early test was pretty high (as high as 20%).

On the minority front, didn't the Bulls try to interview Webster (but were denied by Toronto). He is half Japanese (from his mom side). He would have been the only other candidate I would have considered (but Raptors didn't appear to be having any of it). I don't see how anyone can make the claims that some have over JR, given the fact that he hired KW (he was one of the first minority executive in MLB) and BJ Armstrong long had a very high front office role in the organization. Cartwright at head coach, etc.

This is a dude that turned down other offers to be promoted. HE could turn out to be a disaster, but he had real clout in the league and this was a really good power hire by the Bulls. He wasn't taking a job he wasn't empowered in (and he had all the leverage in the world when it came to that). I bet the GM emerges pretty quickly.

On head coach front, I could see the following candidates emerging. Somewhere I wonder if Thibbs name gets thrown around with new people in and the Gar reign coming to an end. Just don't know if Thibbs has learned to take a step back when it comes to his ability to "play nice". But man if he could, I would be all over him as i still think he is an excellent head coach. Messina Hammond Adrian Griffin Kenny Atkinson

I have a feeling they are going to move pretty quick on the GM front. Lots of reports (no one should be surprised) that as part of the interview process, Karni already listed his proposed candidates for the various positions (and I'm assuming that included head coach). I suspect they will move fast on GM and I honestly wonder if they won't just hire a new coach before the season restarts (at the rate they are moving). Coach won't be able to implement new system, but at the very least, gets a little bit of time with the players. Also, I am going to bet on Michael Finley as one of the candidates that emerges (Cuban has spoke very highly of him). Bulls also reportedly had an informal interview with Nazr Mohammed, who has worked in OKC's front office under Presti (this was for an undetermined front-office role). He could also be raiding some people from Denver or Houston. More I read about this guy, we are going to see a very different operation emerge. Lots of international experience but worked in some pretty modern front-offices in the league before climbing to his current role with Nuggets. Seems to have been influenced a lot by Morey (in the sense of...I expect we will see MUCH more consistent roster churn). Houston always felt like one of those orgs that is always on the phone, always trying for anything at all times. He seems like he has a lot of that in him based upon some quotes I read...that said, I also think he appreciates drafting and developing a bit more than Morey does. I'm getting pretty darn excited.

Paxson might stick around as a senior adviser and I don't think that is a bad thing. Pax has made is very clear this isn't his show and Karnisovas is going to get the reigns to hire his guys. If he wants to pick Paxson's brain, Pax is there for him. If he doesn't...no biggie. Pax is so loyal to Jerry he would never do anything to intentionally undermine him (I genuinely believe that). Gar on the other hand has already been demoted massively. Cowley has been spot and ahead of everything on the Bulls and that point has been clear for a long time. Karni has 10 times the power Gar has (if not more). If Karni doesn't like Gar after he meets with him, I'm sure he will be out. These are pretty sweeping changes Bulls are making. New VP, New GM, likely a new Asst. GM...new scouts...probably new coaching...and one can only hope new medical team and further buildout of its analytics team.

Pax has pretty regularly said he'll do as much or little (including walk away) as the new front office wants. Not sure why everyone here seems to rattle on, regarding Pax. For pete sake, it has been somewhat widely reported that Pax was the driving force behind the change. He has had a rough few years (and for what happened and how he let Gar get too much power / be a snake with Thibs...he is responsible)...but I will always remember back fondly for the fact that Pax gave me a pretty darn enjoyable run with the Bulls (not 90's Bulls good...but from the Deng/Hinrich/Gordon Bulls to the Thib Bulls....I had a very good run of enjoyable basketball. Last 3 years or so have just been miserable and I love basketball.

I'd be way onboard with this.

And make up for the lack of fan noise with more integrated in game experience. Try to get more real time sounds from the dugout and/or live stream the conversations between the manager/pitching coach and the bullpen phone, etc. Maybe have a microphone on the catcher for his visits with the pitcher.

I don't see how whether the games were played vs. fans or without fans makes one iota difference on who the champion. I don't watch a game at home to see the fans in the stands, I watch for the game. Every once in a while it can be cool to here the crowd noise or chants during a game (but that is really limited and definitely only in the playoffs). And I guarantee the leagues can come up with some cool ones to integrate virtual fans from their couches into the games. I really don't understand why people are so hung up on not having fans there. Now it would be different if you couldn't tag players or slide or do normal things the game actually calls for. Like if football, for example, would be done but instead of "tackling" once a defender was within 6 feet the play was blown dead...okay that would suck.

I bought neck warmers that you can lift up and cover your face with. What skiers and snowboarders use.

As far as ties go, I'm pretty sure you can tie every large donor to various large companies (on both sides of the aisle). I think this is like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon type of thing where you could do this analysis and find pretty quick ties amongst anyone with some wealth. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually more to that.

Agree with this a ton. It is why I am so disgusted at both sides of the equation with certain exceptions.

I really don’t get how Fox News somehow became president and how almost everyone on the right went so far right. And this is coming from a former righty who switched to independent.