Chisoxfn

Technically, them winning late probably isn't that big of a deal cause it is more about a little "luck" than anything else. I presume they won't be bottom 3 bad, but they will likely be bad enough that with the adjusted odds they can "try" to contend and even win some games without drastically shifting their odds. I figure they'll be somewhere between 5-10 (in terms of worst teams) but would have better odds than prior years when it comes to "moving up"...at least I think they would. Also more "downside" risk.

When did that happen? During the game? The tank is on! I still say the best thing for this season is probably Lavine crushing it, MCJ showing progress, and Lauri/Dunn playing well when they come back, only for their overall record to be impacted by general youth and inconsistent defense, largely from Parker/Portis and others, who are ultimately moved (leveraging the expiring contract of Parker) either to a contender for assets (those guys would help any contenders bench but are probably not building blocks) and/or combined with another piece for a high end player demanding a trade (Parker, Portis plus a draft pick or Dunn or something for a high end player demanding out) and than go all in on adding another free agent in the off-season. Again...just talking out loud.

I don't think Caufield was advising anyone to chase returns across funds, I simply think he was pointing out an interesting fact regarding Bill Miller's fund track record during an extended span. Probably more to that point was the fact one guy did it, but with all of the funds out there, it kind of highlights how difficult it is to do. All that said, there isn't a one size fits all to investing and all decisions need to take into account an individuals risk tolerance and the duration they expect to have the funds invested (i.e., what sort of liquidity needs).

On another aside, I'm slightly worried that Hoiberg will lose this team quickly (due to all the losing). I don't want "chemistry" and "off the court" issues plaguing a young team that needs good veterans, role models, and stability to enhance their development.

By the way, I realize it was a small sample size, but Doncic is going to be a star. He looks like the real deal. Just a complete package.

Technically they wouldn't have a 19 year old trying to cover everyone's mistakes if Lauri was around. Lauri isn't a stellar defender, but he's at least solid and this was also the first game Dunn was back and he's a good defender. The problem is when Lauri is out, whether it is Portis or Parker, you are replacing a solid defender with a porous one and when Dunn was out, you were taking an above average defender and replacing him with Payne (who is a big step down). The bright side is, I still like the talent of Lavine, Dunn, Lauri, and Carter and all of them are actually nice pieces with each other. Portis can't start with that group though and while I think he's a valuable player, he's best served off the bench (if the Bulls are going to win). Parker certainly showed that he can score the ball but a lot of his points were what I'd call old school "iso" and were detrimental to the team movement. He can score though. A nice pick and Durant/Kwahi would be great this offseason

Given you are in a target 2050 fund, meaning you have another 32 years until your "target retirement date", I'd say you should not even look at the returns and be more focused on the contributions and match. That said, if your 401K has options, you should look to see if there are any low cost target funds out there. Given that you mentioned you aren't financially savvy when it comes to investments, I think the leave it in a target date fund in your retirement works best. The target date fund will be diverse and ensure you are taking enough risk while slowly moving to less risky assets over time. Do note that a 1.4% YTD drop is nothing and there will be a point where the markets drop more...just continue making your contributions and invest with the long-term in mind. Do not try to time the market as the steady contributions will serve as a balancer...sometimes you will be buying at "low's", other times at "high's", but over the long haul this strategy should reap very positive returns (6-8% would be my best guess but that is based upon past history and future history could always look much different). Also, since these are "long-term funds" set aside from your retirement, even in that down market, resist the urge to sell off and continue contributing your funds. It is the contributions which matter most as the LT returns should be positive (and any day to day / year-to-year volatility should be ignored....at least for the next 15-20 years). I'd probably give the same advance to a "financially" savvy person as well. I think in many cases a financially savy person can make an even worse mistake because they think they know more than the average joe, but reality is, timing the market is a difficult thing to do. A lot of "financially" savy people thought markets were hot 2-3 years ago and if you believed that, you would have missed out on nice returns. I tend to think markets are hot now, but again, I'm investing for the long haul and taking a strategy of making steady contributions, albeit I might be a little defensive at this point in time (in the sense that I want to make sure I have some liquidity for an eventual recession to target potential opportunities).

Yeah - I don't agree with this; They have to pay him a lot of money in a year vs. a typical draft pick. And that is for a guy having a down 18 month span. That said, he clearly had a ton of talent and an upward arrow after those 1st two seasons. The move might work for the Cowboys, who knows, but the fundamentals behind the trade just don't make sense to me (for the Cowboys).

Wouldn't be a bad idea for Raiders. If they did that...I'll give Gruden credit...maybe the Mack trade is less bad when you consider they were blowing things up and took what they felt was their best offer. Basically they are hitting "refresh" and planning for Vegas.

That is awful. Cooper isn't any good. I will give Gruden a lot of credit on that move.

Oh man. I remember when the Bears signed him, I was completely perplexed...than we drafted Shaheen with a 2nd round pick and was even more perplexed. Of all of Pace's moves, those two just struck me as extremely odd. I was somewhere hoping Pace was an evil genius, but that definitely wasn't the case. Maybe Shaheen will prove me wrong but that still looked like an overdraft in my mind. That said, I can see that Shaheen has talent....Simms is just a bum.

I'm not going to lie....was completely rooting against the Brewers. Can't stand that style of baseball. Takes a lot for me to root against a team playing the Dodgers.

I can't imagine the Bears have the draft capital to pull that off...unless they get creative and do some three team swap involving Jordan Howard.

I am finely okay trading Jordan Howard. I would have thought the Bears could have better fit him in this offense, but if they were able to get a pick or two and than fill another hole with a good piece that can be around a few years, I would do it. Of course my preference would be to figure out how to leverage Jordan Howard. Dude is a beast but he's been completely neutered by scheme / use. Some is on him / some on our coaches, etc.

By the way, for all the griping I'm doing, long-term, I continued to get more excited (vs. less) about the franchises future. It is also fun to know that, talent wise, we belong with the best teams in the NFL. Unfortunately, we still have a long ways to go when it comes to doing the "little" things it takes to win football games and close-out games. I hope that will come over time...but as a good starting point, it is nice to basically be in every game we play (and not by "fluke"). Its been the opposite where "fluke" has cost the Bears 2 games.

They haven't tackled well and have actually looked slow laterally the past few weeks (in the LB corps)...which absolutely shouldn't be the case. Not sure what the deal is but they just look flat. I also think Fangio keeps thinking they'll beat their guys and thus isn't using scheme to an advantage at all. I literally feel like no one has been coaching this d the past few weeks as we presume our talent will carry us and thus we can play pretty "vanilla". I hope Fangio puts the fut on the gas the rest of the season and starts getting creative scheme wise and that it helps maximize the talent.

He came out for the last 3 series. Presume it was due to him reaggravating or just not being effective. I am afraid Bears will have rushed Mack and Robinson and instead of having them miss 1 game, we'll have them ineffective for a game or two and than out for like 3 games.

It is the way the d plays. Soft and pathetic. Fangio has been so weak this season. We have had no creativity, just relying on individual plays. I’m not happy with the softness and way they have closed. James White shredding them for a couple first downs...no bueno. The lack of tackling, inability to generate pass rush lately, just a lot of nothing. Looks like a mel tucker defense with the amount of big plays and missed tackles the past two weeks. And man...no idea what was going on with Mitch’s passes today cause he made a lot of good reads but just had a ball that was floating all over the place today. Wideouts losing balls in the sun didn’t help either. I also think they need to get more creative with Jordan Howard. Dropping back as much as they did concerned me.

Yes, Mitch and the wideouts left a lot of pints on the field but this game is in the defense and special teams. The defense has been very poor technique wise and Fangio has not been creative at all. They will win the next two.

Yep -The concept of a 529 is good but there are other vehicles you want to put your money in first and you certainly have to be cautious of some of the limitations of 529's. The use of 529's to me depends on how much you already put in 401K + other vehicles and what amount of liquidity you need.

I wish that "Illinois" plan existed in California. Great plan (or at least on paper it seems to be). Without that option, I at least use the 529 plan, albeit, being in the state I live in, the benefits are greatly reduced vs. a state that at least gives you a state tax deduction. That said, when each of my kids were born...I set up a monthly direct deposit to feed into each of their plans and hopefully by doing so, the chunk by chunk approach will allow me (and them) to not sweat where they go to college.

Extremely well said Mike!!!

I didn't say he'd be a good defender...he isn't and he will probably never be good, but I'm not ready to write him off for being solid. It takes a few years to really emerge defensively (for many young players...not all, but many). In general though, Lavine has thus far been a net positive (preseason and game 1) in the sense that he looks the real deal offensively.

A team with Lavine, Payne, and Portis in the starting lineup is going to give up a lot of points. Parker is going to give up a lot of points too. Dunn coming back will help and it is only one game as will having Lauri back in time. Plus, your so called 2nd best defender (Carter Jr.) is still a rookie. This is why most of the analytics presume the Bulls will still be bad. I bet you Pax already knows they will be bad, he's just not thinking it is "tanking" because they are playing guys who they expect to be here over the long haul (vs. having more guys who they are trying to literally "bench"). They will try to win...but the massive incapabilities of the team to play defense (due to a heavy combination of youth/inexperience + some just bad defensive players) will very much prevent them from winning a lot of games. It isn't a tank, because I do believe the Bulls front office legitimately thinks Carter Jr, Lavine, Dunn, and Mark are all core building blocks of the franchise (you just aren't going to win yet with them). Note, I didn't say any of them were stars...but core building blocks. Based upon the extension talks, you can probably put Portis in that mix. If you add another high draft pick (which I expect they will get) plus some free agency additions (which I think they'll get some...maybe not a "Durant" but I think in the next 2 years they will spend some money)...than we'll see. Missing Mark for an extended time will also help in terms of maximizing the draft pick.

Lavine is 23 years old. Young players don't play good defense in the NBA. It takes time. Young teams don't win in the NBA either. Those are both very statistical facts.