Chisoxfn

So take this for what it is worth, but over the holidays I caught up with my buddy who is connected to someone in an NBA front office and he always gives me back some nuggets on the Bulls. Basically, he mentioned Lauri was mis-scouted / evaluated by a lot of people (major disconnect between what coaches saw working him out (which was, this is the best guy we've worked out) vs. what people could get on tape of him(questions about athleticism, ability to D, rebound, etc...maybe too "one dimensional"), but the chatter around the league is that if the draft were to happen again today, he probably goes #1. A lot of people think he's going to be a total star. I mention this mainly because a while back someone said we don't have a star on our roster...I'd argue we might have got lucky (plus I have to give front office credit cause they took him) but we got a guy who a lot of people are raving about (and since I am not in Chicago...I also watch a lot of opposition feeds of the Bulls and dude, they all talk about how the other teams coaches rave about Lauri and usually when they watch, the announcers are all in awe at what he can do for being an athletic big). If he were on another team, dare I say it, we'd all be giving J4L a hard time for calling him a generational talent. The other nugget, was more general, but more on the fact that a lot of NBA people are amazed at how much Dunn has improved (year-over-year) and given how much athleticism he has, think he has a lot more upside, given how well and physical he plays, with the key to his game being the continued refinement of that shot. Note: I am not calling Lauri a superstar or can't miss superstar...he's far from it and has a lot of growth that he'd have to add in his game, but he has shown some pretty darn impressive tools and skills. I really hope he stays healthy and continues to work and develop his game (especially that low post game). I have faith in Hoiberg enhancing his shot to be more consistent, which should help reduce some of that "streakiness".

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 11:53 AM) Bill O'Brien would have lost a power play in Houston if he is out. That would pretty much rule him out in Chicago's rigid structure in my mind. Excellent point.

Jackson would have been a great OC hire. I'm curious to see if any other jobs open up. Could be far fewer teams looking for head coaches then initially expected, right? Oakland, Arizona, Detroit, Indy, Giants, Bears. Anyone else I'm missing? Browns is uncertain since Marvin Lewis is out of contract.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 11:33 AM) I am also on the DeFillipo train, but also have some interest in LeFleur and the two Pats coordinators. I like DeFillipo, Reich, the Arizona DC, Shurmur, and as you all know I'm intrigued with McDaniels. Bill O'Brien would top my list if Houston did part ways with him. I also am accepting of Toub.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 11:21 AM) For me McDaniel's terrible year as Rams OC is a bigger indictment than his Broncos run. Bradford got worse that year, they had a good RB, the only thing really right was the emergence of Brandon Lloyd, but they were like 32 or 31st in offense that year. I agree with this. Brady makes everyone look good.

I should also point out that McDaniels could be an epic disaster. I think he is near top of the list from an upside perspective, but downside is he is actually crazy and too emotional to stay level headed and make rational decisions (critical as a head coach). You'd have to interview him and do a lot of homework. When things get tough (and they will be tough early on for the Bears), you got to have the ability to maintain the course and handle the adversity, not meltdown.

QUOTE (knightni @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 11:15 AM) McDaniels is an unstable person when he gets power. He was 33 years old at the time. I think it is hard to say that is how he is going to be forever. People learn and he is a very gifted offensive mind and talented individual. If he took advantage and learned from his mistakes at a young age, he could actually be better positioned then anyone to truly excel.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 11:07 AM) Rough year with 8 decent but not good games from McCown, 6 from Manziel and 2 from Austin Davis. But his work with Carr in Oakland and Wentz in Philly are pretty incredible, and from what it sounds like he's been around and is one of those well connected coaches in that fraternity. I can see pros and cons, he would sort of be "chasing last years success" with the Rams, but definitely seems like when he's reported on he's one of those guys where everyone thinks he'll be a head coach. I still like McDaniels quite a bit. If I were hiring last year, I'd have hired him or Shanny. This article (albeit dated) is a pretty good read on the redemption of McDaniels. He's a really bright mind, who could really be great, imo. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2666428...-pick-his-spots

In terms of Defilippo...he is intriguing, but I really don't like the fact that he hasn't called plays, etc. Huge jump vs. Reich who called plays, etc. Shurmur very much intrigues me because I like how balanced the Vikings attack is and still believe balanced attacks work well in the NFL (especially when you are going to play a lot of cold weather games).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 10:34 AM) I'd say this goes double for McDaniels given his history. I agree.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 10:21 AM) I’m not advocating they don’t meet with him, I’m just asking if he was still on that as he was last year with 49ers because it makes it unlikely he comes here. My whole thing is you never know what is a "rumor" vs. "fact". But I am not really interested in bringing in a HC who wants total control because more often then not, it doesn't work.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 2, 2018 -> 09:39 AM) What is the point of your post? I think Brian's point is that you might as well meet with him and have the conversation and then go from there. I have always thought it is best to have a front office and HC who are aligned, but the ultimate say of the roster should rest with the GM.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Dec 31, 2017 -> 06:49 PM) The front office will be terrible if they do nothing and allow their draft position to be compromised. I’m greatly concerned when I see posters I respect around here get excited about this hot streak and make comments like the “talent accumulation phase should be over”. If smart, intelligent basketball fans can ignore the real threat of NBA hell, then the casuals will be completely oblivious to this risk and the front office may simply cut corners and look to build a semi competitive team as quickly as possible. We’re in year one of a rebuild and our only goal should be acquiring (or developing) potential star caliber talent or assets. Winning meaningless games because potential sidekicks & bench pieces are playing well doesn’t move the needle in the right direction. We need to get the stars first (or at least one) and then worry about the complimentary pieces later. If our front office can trade guys like Niko, Lopez, etc. for long-term assets (preferably future picks) while at the same weakening our current team then maybe this all works out fine. Just not sure I trust GarPax to actually do that or at least do it proactively enough. I agree with this largely. I would have moved Lopez but at this point I think dumping niko is a net loss. Yes we lose more but with niko this is a better team LONG TERM. Or at least he has given me reason to think that. Now if we had a solid offer, I would move him. I want one of the top guys badly but having lauri and Dunn emerge has been a great thing. I’d move Portis before niko. The thinner bench and no Lopez probably gives you a good shot at high pick without taking too many more steps back.best of all worlds.

QUOTE (Quin @ Dec 31, 2017 -> 06:23 PM) Ok, everyone acting like the FO is terrible because the players took off and two of the Butler pieces are killing it is reaching. That or everyone here knew Dunn and Lauri would be playing like they are, Portis would play well and Niko would go MVP mode. Yes yes yes

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 28, 2017 -> 08:15 AM) I wouldn’t say your summary of their play matches how they’ve looked this last month, but your last sentence is correct. No matter how you slice it, Hoiberg has been a big contributor to this success. Markannen started season running one play very successfully. It was countered, and then they started running cutting plays and post plays that he has ran well, hitting against the knock that he’s just a spot shooter. Dunn has improved dramatically. The overstocked front court has been managed well. The athletic ran a piece today showing even stuff like plays out of timeouts we’ve started to become one of the top teams in scoring. This with a seriously awful bench and mostly terrible guards. Like awful. He is growing as a coach. Heads will be happy. Hoiberg has the guys playing hard and they appear well coached (more importantly...the coaches seem to be getting good development out of the players). Agree with everything you posted, with one exception, the bench. The bench has been quite good (Niko / Portis / Nwaba have all been excellent off the bench (even Grant isn't awful as a bench guard). Dunn is really fun to watch. I am obviously in the minority, but its been fun watching Dunn / Lauri get minutes. I hope this team can find a way to get a top 5 pick while still seeing a ton of growth from its core players. I could argue Niko is making a solid argument to be part of that core.

The movie was wildly inconsistent. It had good moments but a lot of not good or just unnecessary moments and was just very splintered together. Probably one of, if not the worst, star wars movies I've seen (and I'm a fan of Starwars). None of this had anything to do with the death of Luke. Just a really poor story as a whole that didn't capitalize on the momentum of some really good scenes / fights. The first hour plus of the movie left me going...really...and thinking this is really cheesy and forced more than anything else.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 22, 2017 -> 12:08 PM) wat Anyone who says the Bulls front office can't draft is ignorant of every stat out there/article published evaluating drafts. Have they missed, sure, but they have consistently outperformed league peers when it comes to drafting. Lots of historical analysis has been included in past articles highlighting the strength of the Bulls drafting. People can throw out the occasional misses, but in general, they have drafted extremely well. People are just ignorant to how often most teams miss on draft picks. This front office has problems...drafting has been something they have proven (over the long haul) to be very good at. People can rip on Gar/John all the want (and many things they deserve to be ripped for)...but drafting just isn't one of those things.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 22, 2017 -> 10:18 AM) Anyone excited about the Bulls doing anything other than losing right now doesn't understand the NBA well enough. Yep - Thats right. So many teams/franchises have become great from tanking. The great Sixers team still has injury issues and failed miserably for years (and for as "great" as they are...they are still going to need to land some key free agents to make them great...all that talent and they aren't even putting up that great of a record). I suppose you could just plan on sucking for 20 years until you got really really lucky and finally found a couple transcending players. I vehemently disagree with the notion of tanking. Winning championships is not easy in the NBA. Period. Winning them because you tanked hasn't proven some definitively better plan then trying to always build as good of a team as possible (but with a forward looking vision). You can very quickly turn your franchise into a heaping pile of s***. I actually have a brain though and can use my brain to have an opinion different from what is "trendy" in today's league. I don't want to win because of guys who have no future driving wins, but if we win because Kris Dunn and Lauri and other people who can be part of the core keep winning...fine, I have faith in the Bulls front office at maximizing the value of its draft picks. Now I don't hae faith in them executing the free agent route and landing the star but for either path to succeed, we are going to need to win in free agency.

QUOTE (Markbilliards @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 10:01 PM) On the whole, yes. Pumping as much money as you can into your 401k or other tax advantaged accounts is always going to be the key and should be your main focus. Push yourself and find ways to put in more than you thought possible, and that's going to be key in the long term. Otherwise, regarding the retirement age funds, the closer you get to retirement the more the funds increases your % of holdings in bonds and cash and reduce in stocks to be safer. That's a good way to go if you aren't familiar or comfortable with different funds. Personally I think they're usually more conservative than I prefer, but I am also more comfortable with short term risk than most people. The only reason I would advise against it would be due to the expense ratio. When I look at my 401k options, my retirement age-based options have an expense ratio of .7%. For me, that's way too high, so I have 100% of my 401k going into an S&P500 index fund that has a .04% expense ratio. Why does this matter? In the short term, you wouldn't notice much, but the longer term makes a difference. If I put $18,500 into my 401k a year for the next 20 years and I'm getting 7% interest each year for both options, than I will have over $52,000 more if I use the option with the .04% expense ratio. Over 30 years, I will have $192,000 more with the .04% expense ratio. Depends on your 401K options but there are some really low cost age based funds these days.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 08:44 PM) This is what I do. Is this a smart way for those of us who don't know much about the different funds? For most people, this is by far the best approach (sitting in this type of fund).

The Cavs announcers were shocked at how good the Bulls team was. That was an exciting game last night. Team fell short but anyone who thinks this team is a bottom 5 team is crazy. Was nice to see Lauri have a big game.

Let me ask a question...do people think our actual corporate tax rate was appropriate? Staying away from individuals for a second, do we think Corporations are taxed appropriately? This is somewhat of a loaded question because some of this is dependent on what industry the Corporation is in?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 07:55 AM) The earlier the better thanks to compounding interest. "If you can" is a pretty good and short intro guide on retirement investing. https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf General guidelines I've seen and follow are: --Save in your 401k up to your employer's match. If they match the first 5%, put in that much. It's free money. --Beyond the employer match, put your next chunk of retirement savings into an IRA or Roth IRA. Which makes more sense for you depends on your current income levels (both phase out as income goes up) and your current and expected retirement tax brackets. The reason to go with your own IRA over your work's 401k is you can choose someone like Vanguard or Fidelity (and I think Schwab) who offer very-low-cost funds whereas you're going to be pretty limited in your options in your 401k. --Once you've maxed your IRA contribution limits ($5.5k/year right now), increase your 401k savings. That caps out at 18% of your income a year. If you max your 401k and your IRA space, congrats, go see a real financial professional because you've got a good problem on your hands. This is excellent advice.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 21, 2017 -> 07:39 AM) Necrobump to some extent. I started a new job recently and I am taking advantage of the match to the full. I have saved some money via retirement accounts in the past but I'm not nearly where I need to be. This is probably a vague question but when do you need to start saving more money in your retirement account to make sure you're OK when the time comes? My view is you should do it as soon as you start your career. Set it and take advantage of compounding growth. At a minimum, you should set it and take advantage of your company match. I'm an old fogie (at heart) and I believe in living below the means. If you start that way, then as you get more income, you just slowly increase what you put in 401K's and you never have this big "hit" because you suddenly start investing (after you got used to spending that new found money when you initially start your career).

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 20, 2017 -> 06:20 AM) Isn't this what everyone said about Fox when he was hired? I don't think the Bears are that far away. And I do think they have drastically improved / enhanced their culture.