Chisoxfn

I thought one of the Bucs TE's would have been a good fit before they got Jimmy G. Now that they paid Jimmy G, I don't really know how they can acquire a TE, unless it is via the draft. They still have a major need for a young TE, but they don't have the draft picks to acquire one via trade nor do they have the cap space to be too aggressive (they probably have the most money of any franchise in the NFL allocated to TE right now).

I LOL'd.

Agreed with you and MLB has deep coffers, they can figure something out. I would suspect sports will see upticks in ratings as well and globally you could see a resurgence in baseball if they could pull it off and truly be one of the main distractions for a nation going through a unique event. Wouldn't any of us do the same?

I think given the unique circumstances of what is going on, I am 100% good throwing the traditions out the window and doing something unique this year. Heck, could turn into a thing where every 10 years MLB has a one-year shake-up type of deal. I still think NBA should throw out its traditional format to some hybrid March Madness style format (with a caveat I would not have the final 4 a one-game elimination).

The one worry is some of these Knicks connections (cause LOL...Knicks). Hughes I actually like (and Clipppers front office is very diverse and obviously just having the logo to learn from is awesome) and Lloyd obviously had a ton of success with Chicago so maybe it is more of an issue that Orlando just has more macro challenges that in his role, Lloyd can't address.

Exactly - Pax knew what was going on the whole time. Doesn't mean he is going to straight up say it to the media. They were laying all the groundwork for the eventual search at the All Star Game. And I am very excited at who they have brought in and how they are going about this change. My caveat is, I wasn't thrilled with the 3 leaked names the Bulls are looking at from a GM perspective (hopefully this is an initial list and we see better names emerge). Lloyd was the best one (and obviously was very successful in Chicago)...but whether to his own fault or not, Orlando has not exactly excelled during his tenure there. Marc Eversley of the Philadelphia 76ers, Mark Hughes of the Los Angeles clippers and Matt Lloyd of the Orlando Magic.

Except for this doesn't align to what has been reported. Maybe that was the straw that told the Reinsdorf's they would get rid of Gar. But Paxson apparently went to the Reinsdorf's in December (well before the All Star Game) and told them basically that the front office had failed, hadn't kept up with the evolving NBA and that they were too stuck in their ways at this point to make the necessary changes (I think this was more that everyone has too many ties to the equation and therefor unable to make the necessary changes). I also think Paxson was tired of his role, etc and he told the Reinsdorf's he would do whatever they needed but they should make the change. Basically Paxson fell on his own sword to drive this change. It is why he is still around as a special adviser too because that is pretty rare and it shows he cares for the organization and he realized that a change at the top (and throughout) was needed.

Very high.

Pax staying on as a senior adviser (but again...follows narrative that Pax would do as much / little as he wanted).

Death numbers are pretty legit. Case numbers are not. And balta...when I used the 1 in x and than shifted out I was purely making an example so anyone who read the post could understand what I am saying. No one believes mortality rates for this virus are 2-3 percent. Those are grossly inflated numbers. They also aren’t .1/.2 percent which is the flu. They lie somewhere in between and if I were to get, they are somewhere between .5 and 1 percent (in a controlled setting where you have ventilators and equipment).

I don't think you and I are saying the same thing. There are emerging views that with a larger portion of the population being asymptametic (potentially as high as 50%) and just general underst-estimating of the overall count (much more so than initial estimates), that the mortality rates may be massively elevated (still well in excess of the flu so I'm not doing some flu comparison here). Obviously...if you don't social distance, you have more infected, hospitals crash, and mortality skyrockets (but that is a different variable driving the mortality than the variable I am discussing). That said...basic math says if I think 1 person dies out of every 100 (if hospitals are safe) but instead, it is actually 1 person per 1000...you end up at a dramatically different point of the basic mortality curve. And from there, you tweak mortality based upon the stress & capacity of the hospitals, including relevant equipment, etc to treat and ventilate, etc. You have to look at all the independent factors and then when you run the model, you blend in the components to come up with new projections. Social distancing is the single biggest reason we have contained it and you can't lax very much. The widely held wisdom is you need 90% social distancing to shut this thing down in 3 months (doesn't mean you have killed it...but that is what you are probably talking about). If you are only at 80% of population doing Social Distancing...it is going to take 4 months. Anything 70% below and you just flat out won't contain it. That is why it will be paramount once we do knock this down that everyone is ready to rapidly identify and respond (including rapid shutdowns of borders, etc) until they actually have a cure and/or an effective way to treat this thing. Further, the R0 has been fundamentally lowered due to this measures (moving from 2.5+ to 0.6). R0 < 1 would indicate the virus will continue to dwindle and eventually die-out over time. To go a little deeper, there is also emerging research being done on select comorbidities and what is driving such the high rates of mortality within subsets of the population and an emerging UK study is believing the COVID virus is getting into the body by latching on to ACE2 receptors. Specifically patients with hypertension, diabetes, and other cardiovascular diseases tend to take groups of drugs which are known as Ace Inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptors, which cause an individual to put out more ACE2 receptors, which increase their susceptibility to the infection (and depth of the infection). This only explains these particular comorbidities, but obviously research is being done broadly and who knows whether any of this holds or not.

Welcome back. Hell of a memory you have. I hope you can say the same thing about logging on to ST 50 years from now Also as owner of Soxtalk, just want to tell the rest of you, welcome aboard. Make this place your home and feel free to venture to the other parts of the board too. Go Sox and stay safe during these unique times!

Bulls did officially hire Connelly (former asst gm in Phoenix and was scouting more recently for Nuggets). No word on the role but more exciting is reports that Bulls new front office will have multiple asst. gm’s and that Reinsdorf has evidently vowed to open up his pocket book. Also it sounds like Booth, Philly VP, Clippers Asst Gm and Matt Lloyd (former Bull) all targets for GM role. No word yet on Nazr but he might be another potential asst gm or have a seperate front office role. I like Booth and Clips exec best but have no beef with Lloyd (hasn’t been as good in Orlando but was great in past stop in Chicago) None of this may work but man it is extremely refreshing and exciting. Lots of fresh blood coming and a heck of a lot of depth being added. Fact that our new pres has tons of global credibility is huge too (going back to his days leading NBA international scouting).

Social distancing absolutely has worked (and is buying us time for sure). The specific factor I am aware they are looking in to adjusting is a revised mortality rate to reflect new views on under reporting. I am sure they are also modifying projections based upon emerging data/trends on social distancing.

Oh I agree with you entirely. There is nowhere that already has herd immunity (aren’t we talking about a pretty high percentage needed for full herd immunity 80-90%...albeit even 50% would help). I have seen some emerging data indicating current data seems to indicate pretty heavy underreporting with conservative estimates falling within 10-50 times. My understanding is the imperial college (or whatever the uk school is) is in the midst to a large refinement of their study.

Man...McMahon ruined it. I thought XFL was even better this time around. Loved some of the new concepts they introduced (I will admit I didn't watch near enough after first couple weeks...but that was more due to my busy schedule than not enjoying the games).

Also some smoke, from Cowley, that Griffin might be emerging as a front runner for the head coach gig. I'd be 100% okay with that.

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).