Chisoxfn

QUOTE (raBBit @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:37 AM) I am not sure 3 wins is very much indicative of the roster the Bears had to start the year. Not to dive in on this and detract from the Bulls discussion, the Bears could have easily been 6-10. They lost 5-7 games by a single possession. They lost their #1, #2 and #3 QBs for the year. They lost their #2 receiver and 1st round pick for the year. They lost their #1 WR and one of their best defenders for four games each to steroids. They lost perhaps their best player in Kyle Long for the whole year. They lost their TE for the year. They lost their C for year before the season started. They lost perhaps their best defender in McPhee for multiple games. They lost Trevethen for the year. They had the worst secondary. Yeah, I am making excuses for them and good teams win close games but this was a "when it rains it pours" season for the Bears. It was just one thing after another after another. If the Bears have reasonable health next year and address the secondary they should improve incredibly. If they could find a QB, obviously huge task, they could compete for a champion pretty soon. The NFC isn't that tough a league. Finding a franchise QB is much easier that a superstar in the NBA. The best QBs after the top tier are from all across the draft. Wilson a 3rd rounder, Carr a 2nd rounder, Prescott a 4th rounder and Cousins was a 4th rounder. It's not like you need to pick in the first few picks to get a franchise-changing player like in the NBA. Bears have a strong front and some redeeming pieces on the offensive side. Just need to continue to accumulate depth and put their eggs in the right QB basket. Of course that's easier said than done but it's not as much of as an inhibitor of finding a superstar in the NBA. The Sox, while baseball is a total different beast with the playoffs being a crapshoot, are on the right path at least. They in a clear, committed direction. They suck for a couple years and they should have a budding young core with more prospects in tow with a boatload of money and a pending TV deal around 2019. Far better plan than that of the Bulls whether they opt to keep or move Butler. If the Bulls moved Butler and loaded up with picks, I'd still probably say they are in a better position or at least akin to the Sox. That said, I think your post is pretty spot on in general.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:35 AM) I'm not sure that guy doesn't exist in this year's draft. Just something media people are saying that haven't watched enough film yet. Lots of groupthink going on with this year's QB class. I would be fine with Kizer / Trubinsky. A little concerned with Watson...from the perspective his accuracy just isn't that great and didn't improve year over year. That said, you can't argue what he did on the biggest stages.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:31 AM) This is true. And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. So basically you should just never try unless you get Lebron or Jordan or Kobe? And if you aren't one of those teams you should just consistently tank until said generational talent appears?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:30 AM) Not true. If the Bears get the right QB, they have a chance. That's the way it goes. s***, even when the Sox were floundering the past few years they had a shot. If they could have snuck in the playoffs during 1 of those seasons, Sale and Q could pitch their way to a World Series. Both teams have a much better chance at championships in the near future than the Bulls do. I can't believe it's even a question in that sport. See this is the difference between me and you. I agree if the Bears had the right QB...but they have went 50 years without having a good QB. You look at me and say, the Bulls can't possibly sign a big free agent and thus can't possibly win the title...but I could flip this same argument on the Bears. That said, I know you and I agree that the Bears need to stop ignoring QB and need to really focus on it. My view is you take a QB and if you miss, you take another...just keep doing it until you get it right. I can't believe how few times the Bears have even drafted QB's, especially early on.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) You think they are the closest? How? We have different tv's man. I guess because I don't even know who the Bears QB is and the Sox went what 90 years without a title between years, so I'm not exactly ready to annoit them because they started a rebuilding plan this year and thanks to trading off all those parts finally have a top 5 farm system? I know a lot of those guys will bust and there is just as much likelihood that you turn into the Pirates / Royals (and end up sucking for 30 years). People tend to overrate / overhype unknown players. More so now that the Cubs became this, what would appear to be dynasty, but it wasn't just because they "tanked", they also spent a ton of money internationally and on free agents and lucked into Jake Arrietta (I'll call it luck although I'm sure they picked him for a reason, but no one can ever tell me they expected him to be the pitcher he was the past couple of years...just like I don't think RH / KW ever imagined Q would turn into the player he is). Every top 50 prospect is going to be an all star...until they aren't. So I just have a more realistic view (in my opinion) as to what our prospects are worth and what they will amount to. If I viewed every one of our prospects that is top 100 being an all star, then yes, I could say the Sox have a great chance, but I think that is completely and utterly unrealistic. If a year from now Moncada is smashing 40 hr's and putting up a 1.000 OPS, Tim Anderson is hitting .330 and playing great defense, and Giolito / Lopez / Rodon are looking lights out, while Kopech / Collins are top prospects at their position (and we added more talent in the draft), then I can maybe make that statement...today I think it is utterly premature. I think the current path for any of the three franchises to win a championship in the next few years is very unlikely, but if I were to bet on the most plausible scenario, I'd probably say the Bulls (and the odds would still be very low and would probably involve them landing a free agent now and then somehow getting an Anthony Davis or someone of that ilk via trade / free agency another couple years down the road...so not an immediate fix and probably pretty unlikely). They also would clearly need to start hitting on some draft picks as the Bulls would look much different if they hadn't whiffed on their recent 1st round picks.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:23 AM) I think they have $29 million in cap space if Wade stays, over $50 million if he flees. But I agree, the top free agents aren't coming here. Yep - They have tons of cap room. I don't know who exactly is coming, but with one free agent signing this team is basically a 3 seed in the east...which then puts them another piece away from being that much closer (and Lebron is getting older every year...so is Wade for that matter). Golden State is going to be tough to beat...you are going to need a legion of players to team up to knock Golden State off over the next couple of years (barring injuries), imo.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 09:19 AM) They are no threat, and most likely will be no threat for quite a while, but to say the other teams are closer to a championship? 2 teams had worse records than the Bears in 2016. The White Sox weren't .500 and traded their 2 best players. These teams are years and years away. Maybe something happens this year that closes their gaps, but for me, if I can't see legit shot at title for any of them, I can't say one is clearly farther away than the other 2. If everything goes right for the Sox and/or Bears, then yes. I am with you...I can not see how one can argue that any of these franchises is closer to a championship and I still think the Bulls are probably the closet by nature, albeit it is a sport where I think it is hardest to win a championship (I think the other sports are easier in some sense because it is less likely at times that the best team actually wins). In basketball, I typically think the NBA champion is truly the best team (we could argue Golden State last year due to Curry's injury...but that is a rare exception, imo). In football, there are definitely years where the best team had a bad game and didn't even make the superbowl (baseball same thing...run into a hot team and the best team can fizzle out quickly).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 8, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) Bulls are clearly the furthest away from winning a championship. And that's what I care about. I don't even know how to figure that out. Bears don't have a QB on the roster capable of leading them to a superbowl, so I don't see it with them. Sox, hell if I know. We have no idea who any of these prospects are and what will happen. Football tends to have more turnover and quicker rises from bottom to top, so it could be the Bears, but I don't know how to justify that statement. I know you disagree that the Bulls will be unable to put another superstar around Butler, but given they have one of the best players in the land (in a sport where best players matter the most), I would still say Bulls are most likely of teams to be successful over the next 5 years. I don't know that I'd peg any of them to win a major championship in that span, at least not now. Maybe all the guys the Sox traded for go on to become superstars and it could happen, but there is no science / high probability I would put on that. It seems clear that the Bulls path is to target free agency this off-season and we'll see what happens. I think they are going to try another year with Butler and at that point, they'll see what they want to do. I think the report on Gar was more to shut everyone up from talking about the front office for the time being and stop the distraction. That said, none of us were in the rooms when the front office went the path of Wade / Rondo. They might have said, look JR, these moves aren't going to make us much different then being a 7th/8th seed, but here is what / how we see this move helping us take the next steps forward. So while fans might be dissapointed, the ultimate expectation and plan might actually be unfolding as they saw fit (obviously not in the sense that Niko sucks, etc, but more from a roster perspective). In fact, I can't imagine any of them thought Butler was going to take even more steps forward.

You know...despite all the Bulls struggles, they are still the professional sports team that currently provides me the most enjoyment (given that I'm not a huge hockey fan). Sox / Bears are awful. Even these past two years, I can still watch and vividly enjoy Bulls games. Not as much as I could during the Thibs era, but they are still a solid team who plays some good games. Yes, they do their share of frustrating things, but hey, if I'm comparing to my other franchises, the Bulls are by far had the most success (maybe a sad statement, but a true statement). I'm hoping the Bears change that soon...but Sox are a few years away from having what I'd call an entertaining product (in the sense that we can even be thinking about the playoffs).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:16 PM) Even if we instantly implemented a "financial education" course and requirement today, though, you've still got tens of millions of people in this country who are already out of high school and may not have enough financial literacy to be aware of these issues and that their "adviser" they're trusting their life savings with may not have their best interests in mind. It's a common enough issue that some financial services firms even have commercials where people ask someone "how does your adviser get paid?" and the person sits there with a blank look on their face. There are already people that are held to the fiduciary standard, so I guess I'm struggling to see why this couldn't be implemented to people who now only have to meet a "suitable" standard. Does it make sense to you that only 401K money should be part of the fiduciary standard? The wrong party is driving this thing and ultimately it should be more in the hands of the SEC, imo, and applied consistently to those giving financial advice on registered products. By the way, sometimes a commission is a better strategy...for example, i might do something that I hold for a long long time and paying a commission vs. an asset based fee could actually save me significant money in the long run. The regulation of what was currently written was beyond onerous, that said, the intent of what the regulation wanted to do absolutely makes sense.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:16 PM) That's not really an apt analogy though. Financial professionals and asset managers don't hold themselves out as salesmen. They hold themselves out as professionals who will take care of and invest your money. Financial professionals are closer to lawyers in my mind. I'm a professional providing services to my clients and I have a duty of care that goes along with that - a standard that I have to be held to. I'm selling a service in that I'm billed an hourly rate and paid accordingly, but if I don't fulfill my duty, I can be sued. If you want financial planners, asset managers, and other financial professionals to be held to the same standard as a car salesman, they should probably just be called salesmen. They are still held to a suitability rule...it just is a lower bar then "fiduciary". I've seen a lot of stuff misrepresented by the media / radio talk shows regarding what is and isn't being impacted by the DOL rule. I do agree with you that they are not the equivalent of a car salesman and I think the quotes from the official white house people were awful regarding why they were doing what they were doing (and missed the point on the real reason there should be stay in the requirements around the DOL rule). Please note, that I am not lumping Dodd Frank into this, even though I have heard a lot of people who seem to think Dodd Frank has anything to do with the DOL Fiduciary rule.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 03:04 PM) Well yeah. Do you expect a car dealer to tell people to go buy a bicycle? It's only a problem if the car dealer sells them a car that he can easily discern they can't afford (and even that is more on the finance guys than the dealer/salesman). Beyond that, the consumer needs to bear a burden of understanding. Which is why, as you've seen me say before, I am 100% on the idea that no one in this country should graduate high school without a course in basic finances to include not just balancing a checkbook, but understanding what mortgages, car loans, credit cards and plain vanilla investment vehicles are and how the work at a high level. It should be a basic proficiency standard, tested the same way reading, writing and arithmetic are. Yes. I cosign this times 100. In fact, if you ever run for office and get to a high enough position where you have a cabinet, I'd hope you would consider me for some form of a finance related committee member. The lack of education and stupidity around personal finances never ceases to amaze me (and for all I know, despite thinking I know what I'm doing, I too could be a giant dope making terrible investments).

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 12:16 PM) I think the scariest part of what is going on in this country right now is the complete disregard for actual facts. You have a guy who did nothing but make s*** up his entire campaign win the presidency and now you have a lot of his dumbass supporters believing everything he says even if it is directly contradicted by evidence. We are now a country that ignores facts and evidence and believes everything that the news says is "FAKE NEWS" (I know your post was in jest) when the actual fake news is coming from the president and his administration. Terrifying world. s***...do you really believe the White Sox didn't win the last 11 world series (since 05)? We won the off-season, dominated the regular season, and won in October...it was amazing. In fact, we were so good, Manfred told JR that he had to sell Sale and Q because other towns teams entirely gave up on baseball. It got so bad that they had to fake the Royals and Cubs winning the series (as if).

Randy Brown strongly defends his character and all of these "anonymous" reports. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baske...0204-story.html

Welcome back Soxy...how have you been?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 7, 2017 -> 05:30 AM) What I've heard is its the best smart watch on the market, IF you have an iphone. The pebble was probably the best for awhile there but since fitbit bought them, I would play a wait and see what is developed there. Fitbit has a much better fitness app and community, and if they can leverage the superior pebble platform they could have something there. I love my Charge 2, but I wouldnt mind an apple watch. There are some very good honest reviews out there about the series 1 and 2. I agree with you that fitbit should be really interesting with pebble integration. That said, if you have an iphone, there is just so much more features that exist on the apple watch then any other. If you go android, so many more options that truly have full functionality. Most of the watch devises that work on an apple are so limited in what they can do paired with an apple phone vs. if they were paired to an android phone.

Bulls looked like they almost fouled boogie when he was taking a 3 point shot with the Bulls up 4 (tried to give Boogie a 4 point play near the buzzer). But they end up holding on (in dramatic fashion...never should have gotten here). Boogie ejected and now will be suspended for his next game haha (refs missed it...Lopez fouled him stupidly on that 3).

If they lose this...just pathetic. Had a big lead in the 1st half, which they pretty much blew...only to build back a 25+ point lead in the second half to see the lead come down to 3 and Kings on roll. Blew the Houston game too (albeit they did battle back in that one).

At least it is a good distraction while I work. On a sidenote, given how much all of my teams suck (Bears / Sox)...I honestly don't know what I'd do if the Bulls were in full blown tank mode. I literally don't know what sports I'd get to enjoy at that point.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 09:20 PM) It was really stupid of the Kings FO to sign Barnes. You don't want Cousins around that guy Yeah. It literally looked like Barnes was about to deck Boylen. I always wonder why I notice Boylan on the court more then Fred. Note: I swear Bulls never can just hold a big lead.

On replay...it wasn't as bad as it looked, Barnes was really the worst of it. I don't get it...let the Bulls players whine to the refs. Literally no reason for Cousins / Barnes to have done what they did.

Holy moley...something going down in this Bulls game. Rondo and Cousins get into it about something...Matt Barnes joins the frey and Cousins shoves a Bulls coach. Some people are getting ejected and I presume suspended over this. Not sure what got Rondo so steamed...he was still steamed when they went to break.

Got one for Christmas...it was a significant upgrade from the free pebble I have. I probably don't take near advantage of it as I should, but when I've gone on jogs, it is pretty damn nifty and I am a huge fan of the ability to text / read texts & emails from the phone (plus any of the reminders you have programmed). It probably isn't worth the overall cost, but when I'm in meetings and need to get a quick read/response to wife regarding pick-up or other kid related items, it comes in very clutch (plus just in general, I enjoy never needing my phone if someone calls me at the house or sends something to me (cause I never have it anywhere near me). But I'm not one who is overly glued to their phone so I'm sure I take advantage of like 10% of what the thing does. If you want to respond, etc, on an watch device, you have pretty limited options in general thanks to Apple's closed application. Biggest con is the battery life, while upgraded, still sucks to what I was used to from my pebble. I know quite a few people who have them and all seem to enjoy it. Again, I don't really think it is worth the price though...realistically it should cost half of what it does, imo.

QUOTE (ChiliIrishHammock24 @ Feb 6, 2017 -> 01:43 PM) I think he means that, like the reason for my win, sudden death meant no extra point is kicked. So a TD winner in OT only meant 6 points versus a TD winner in regulation likely means 7. I think we all assumed that super bowl square pools pay out 1st through 4th quarter and if a game goes to overtime, no one gets a payout based upon overtime (since the squares and related payouts aren't typically set out that way).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 4, 2017 -> 09:28 AM) Those were two of the worst calls I have ever seen. How the NBA can't fix that stuff during a review is beyond me. I was literally laughing hysterically at those two calls. It was so awful. Literally cost the Bulls the game (they blew other opportunities late too). That said, the overall game was extremely entertaining and a great watch. But I literally don't know if I've seen much worse foul calls than those ones.