Chisoxfn

Don't live in Illinois so I don't follow this, but If I remember, a few years back, there was a lot of issues with the Saints when their owner was pushing some legislation that was anti-player? I don't remember how it ended, but there was a lot of bad press at the time.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 09:56 AM) He's really bad defensively and he is a bad rebounder on top of it. He isn't much of a rim protector and he can't defend at all in space or on the pick and roll. So we are essentially talking about Eddy Curry? I always liked Curry's offensive game, so much offensive talent...could never figure out how / why he was such an awful rebounder / defender.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:45 AM) The idea that someone can call themselves a "financial adviser" and sell you high-cost, high-fee investments that are better for their pocketbook than yours seems like a bad idea, though. Financial advisors already rules they have to follow...this was just taking it another step further by making the advisor a fiduciary and with that comes significant challenges. Just think if 5 years later you look at your investment or insurance product and go, geeze, this isn't so great, in hindsight X would have been better...now you sue said advisor saying what they gave you wasn't in your best interest. My view is, I wouldn't do much in terms of changing the rules other then fully disclosing to the consumer what fees I'm going to get paid on the various products I am recommending. That way, as a consumer, I can take their advice, but also have an understanding as to how the advisor is being compensated and this information might cause me to ask more questions, etc.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:38 AM) FINRA flat out said in the conference that they (as in the regulators) did not ask for this rule, and they did not want this rule. This was all on Congress. Congress was not a proponent of the DOL. The other main regulatory bodies kind of all stayed out of it. In fact, at various times there were many democratic and republican congressmen against the ruling due to the flaws.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) From a consumer side, there would be no good reason to take on low net worth individuals. That is a great point and one I hadn't even thought about. You are spot on that you would never generate enough in commissions to make up for their added compliance costs. I am vividly familiar with the matter (as like you, there are direct impacts to my industry / company). The big issue was the department didn't really listen on those two pain points and how to streamline / enhance the process. That said, there are a lot of really good things that are included within the legislation as well. Another thing that is really odd to me is why should 401K money fall under one-set of rules while other funds don't. SEC is really who should be weighing in on this, imo.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) Fair enough, and that's a heck of a lot better of an explanation than "people should be free to be gouged on commissions and fees they might not understand!" the administration has put forward. The explanation I saw was this, which I found awful: “We think it is a bad rule. It is a bad rule for consumers," said White House National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn in an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. “This is like putting only healthy food on the menu, because unhealthy food tastes good but you still shouldn’t eat it because you might die younger.”

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 07:22 AM) Having been to the most recent FINRA conference last year this rule was a big topic of discussion. FINRA basically said that Congress had no discussion with them about this rule, what it meant, and how to enforce it. It was a gigantic clusterf***. I understand the idea of what they were wanting to do here, but they basically put together an unrealistic and more importantly an unenforceable jumble of legalese to paper. It was basically going to run smaller firms out of business, and leave only the Goldman's of the world standing in the advisory roles because the compliance costs for small firms trying to prove something that is unprovable were going to produce a cost structure that was impossible for them to overcome. Realistically it wasn't going to what Congress wanted because they have no idea how this structure actually works. And that was what the body responsible for enforcing it had to say about it. The biggest flaw was two fold...one how do you litigate against it...a total disaster from that perspective, and two, with the increased cost of compliance, etc, associated with it, the lower to middle class consumer will get pushed to the side, because you won't be able to generate the returns to meet the costs for those investors. Huge huge issue with both good and bad parts to the legislation (imo).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 08:05 AM) I don't see how a deal gets done, but I would love to have him. The Bulls front line is just awful. Taj & Lopez are not what is wrong with the Bulls. The backups yes, but Taj / Lopez are not anywhere close to the Bulls biggest problems. That said, I'd be interested in Okafor. Our biggest area of need is point guard. After that, it would be great to upgrade elsewhere, getting another big, especially one you think can develop into something above average, would be huge too. How freaking bad is Okafor defensively? He's pretty smooth offensively so I'm curious just how bad he is at everything else that is causing him to get such little play. Philly is just killing his trade value. Obviously, Embiid, Noel, and Iliasyova are all taking up his minutes.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 3, 2017 -> 04:43 AM) I'd rather take Noel. Isn't he a free agent at the end of the year (presuming restricted but not sure).

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 01:30 PM) People have compared Allen to Aaron Donald. I don't think I've seen any comparisons to Donald. Donald is a disruptive force who relies on quickness and is largely undersized. Allen has three inches on Donald so I don't know that I see the comparison. By the way, I'm open to Allen and I'm not a scout, my view is he's going to be a good to very good player, but I don't view him as being a disruptive player on defense.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 01:12 PM) I want Allen. Fangio can move that guy around and he will be a game changer on day one. I like the idea of obtaining more picks, dont get me wrong but this dude is a cant miss IMO. Without a pass rush you leave any safety you have back there out to dry even if he is good. Either way I think they make out pretty well in this draft and off season though. Allen isn't known as a pass rusher and he has had 2, possibly three surgeries on his shoulder. I am scared to death of Allen (maybe it is the White syndrome) but I pretty much am only interested in pass rushers, perenial all pro LT's, or QB's with a top 3 pick. Allen doesn't seem to fit the make-up of a guy who will be a total elite difference maker while I think the safeties can address some huge needs and have that talent, that said, I think I grade them more similarly and thus would prefer to move down to get them, cause I don't really see a team taking those guys @ 3 (and figure at least one will still be there if we were down at 7, 8 or 9.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) I would still want that for sure game changer with the third pick instead of a really good safety + two dice rolls. I think the game changers available at #3 are safeties and I view the top two relatively interchangeably and not being worthy of the #3 pick, so if a team had another player, say an offensive player they wanted/needed to move up a few slots to get, I'd prefer to make that move and accumulate picks. I have always believed in the Jimmy Johnson (and really to some extent Belicheck) view of moving down and accumulating picks...gives you the opportunity to be aggressive when you need to move up. Pace has also shown he is not afraid to move picks (which I like).

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) If we can get him for our second and a third next year I would be pretty damn excited. You could still draft a defensive beast with the third pick and add Jimmy G? Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiit. My ideal scenario would be to trade down and grab the best safety available, get some more picks, use a 2nd and 3rd (following year) on Jimmy G and then obviously use some FA money. Could all be a disaster, but I'd be okay swinging for it.

By the way, I still think Jimmy G should be plan A (presuming we could get him for less than a 1st round pick).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) I'm kidding man. Just frustrated with the entire org. No worries. I enjoy this type of debate, just figured you might not have caught my edit, as I didn't want anyone to imply that I was saying, our plan should be to get Steph Curry.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:38 PM) I always thought he was legit. Me too.

Not that it is a huge sample size, but the Bears also practiced with the Pats last year and through that, presumably got some additional insight in terms of how Jimmy works with his teammates, etc. We know I'm a supporter, albiet, there is obviously risk when the best team in the league is trading a guy.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:20 PM) Gage in your hypothetical you're talking about adding the reigning 2 time MVP, that's not just adding a good pg. If we had Steph or Russ or Harden or Durant or LeBron then nobody is having this disccusion but that's not happening. And if we had a good to very good pg then yes, we're still having this conversation. No No no...I was saying what would we look like if we just added the reigning MVP. More from the perspective of, with Steph are we a contender. It would appear the answer is yes. So my follow-up was, if we didn't get Steph, but instead got a good to very good point guard (which I absolutely view as obtainable given the FA class and the depth of the position in this league), then what sort of team are we? My answer is we are a top 4 team in the East with a good PG (I'll call that an 18-22 PER player). If we had that PG already on our roster, would we all be talking about tanking or would be looking at this team and saying, how do we go from the 3/4 seed to the 1 seed? Basically just stating, are we all wanting to blow this team up because we are an 8 seed with the worst starting PG in the NBA and a bench that has largely sucked (or at least underperformed vs. its talent) vs. having a more realistic view of being basically an off-season away from being a top 4 seed again (this assumes you buy into my argument that we can get a PG and with a PG, even in the class of a Jrue Holiday / Jeff Teague, that we would be a top 4 seed in the East). I'm not saying in the off-season we can get Teague plus another player (who knows...probably not), but it does mean we are that much closer to truly being a piece away in a star driven league (clearly somewhere in this equation we'd need to get better results out of guys staying around, better coaching, and draft well and actually get benefits of those players..so there are assumptions) but s***, that sounds a lot better then throwing this in the tube when we've never given Butler, a top 10 player in this league (right now) a legit PG to play with (Rose hasn't been legit in some time and even a year ago, Butler wasn't the same player he is today...he was great last year, but he's that much better this year).

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 12:09 PM) Well that settles it. The Bulls should keep Jimmy Butler and get Steph Curry. Problem solved. Read my edited post...I think it shows where I was going with my initial question.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:56 AM) Honestly, sat back, thought about how those Warriors teams worked, the scoring punch that would bring countered by the defense on the other side, couple legit big men... They'd need one more consistent 3 point shooter at the deadline somewhere, and I have no confidence in the coaching staff so that would also need changed, but yes I think that team is a contender for the top seed in the east and could hang with either of those teams in a 7 game series. I agree with you (ignoring coaching staff). I think we are the right superstar away from being in the picture of the best teams in the league (Curry would fit that bill) and a really good point guard away from being a top 3 seed in the East. I also agree that it doesn't mean we don't have other flaws that would have to get addressed though (and by no means is that like a "lock"). By the way, I'm not saying we could Steph in FA (even though he is a free agent) because I can't see him leaving let alone to come to the Bulls, but I guess my main point was, if we had a good to really good PG (and I really can't fathom a scenario where we couldn't get one this off-season), would we all be talking about "blowing up the Bulls" or would be be talking about how do we add one more big piece to help (again not saying this next step is easy)? I tend to think we would be talking about adding vs. selling at that point.

Let me ask what is probably a worthless question, but what does this team look like if you replaced Jerian Grant with Steph Curry? Does this team compete with Boston / Cleveland for being the best team in the East? Clearly the bench is flawed / inconsistent and I'm throwing out an unrealistic scenario since we can't get Curry now..but just asking.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:44 AM) I agree with this. If Wade goes, you aren't getting CP3. However, Kyle Lowry is a free agent as well. Goran Dragic is on the block. There are point guards available. I don't presume we will get either of those guys, but we don't know. Clearly we'd have to do some moving and shaking if you are going to get those players though, but Lowry would be a very good addition who makes the team better (both guards are on the older side, so maybe teams will be less interested in giving huge money...although I see no reason Toronto wouldn't give Lowry max money). You might work a deal with the Lakers for Russell (part of this depends on whether you think Russell can develop) and then spend FA money on other parts. To get Russell, I presume we'd have acquired picks in trades of other vets though (or a 3 team deal where a contender gets Taj and something, we get Russell and Lakers get picks). Probably not realistic, but if you listened to people talk out here, they are so fed up with Russell (and maybe I don't watch enough Laker basketball but it seems too premature). He's on my list of guys who shouldn't be on the block but are and I'd be all over getting him if we could (again probably not realistic, but there are all kinds of trades that get made where you go, huh, never saw that coming). Jrue Holliday wouldn't be a bad sign either (to address PG), albeit, I'd think with all the guard play out there, PG would not be a hard spot to get right in the draft (although it does take time for a player to develop). Jeff Teague too. There are a lot of PG's that will be UFA's who would be major upgrades for the Bulls (if they went that route) and I wouldn't be shocked if there aren't a couple of those PG's who don't get near as much as they expect (because the league is chop full of quality point guards, unless you play for the Bulls). Doesn't mean Wade walks either and maybe you can figure out other ways to be creative. It doesn't get you your title yet, but to me, it does bring you another step closer, so that you get to the point where you could be the opportune move away. If we had a legit 18-22 PER point guard, who could help spread the floor / space, we'd be a much different team, imo. I could say the same thing if our bench players played with consistency (and some of them have the talent)...but benches can be enhanced by good GM's without breaking the bank.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) So you are going to tell Wade to GTFO and then tell Butler to recruit one of the guys Wade is really close to to come play for a team that has less talent than the one he is currently playing for? Brilliant. I agree with this. If Wade goes, you aren't getting CP3. However, Kyle Lowry is a free agent as well. Goran Dragic is on the block. There are point guards available. I don't presume we will get either of those guys, but we don't know. Clearly we'd have to do some moving and shaking if you are going to get those players though, but Lowry would be a very good addition who makes the team better (both guards are on the older side, so maybe teams will be less interested in giving huge money...although I see no reason Toronto wouldn't give Lowry max money). You might work a deal with the Lakers for Russell (part of this depends on whether you think Russell can develop) and then spend FA money on other parts. To get Russell, I presume we'd have acquired picks in trades of other vets though (or a 3 team deal where a contender gets Taj and something, we get Russell and Lakers get picks). Probably not realistic, but if you listened to people talk out here, they are so fed up with Russell (and maybe I don't watch enough Laker basketball but it seems too premature). He's on my list of guys who shouldn't be on the block but are and I'd be all over getting him if we could (again probably not realistic, but there are all kinds of trades that get made where you go, huh, never saw that coming). Jrue Holliday wouldn't be a bad sign either (to address PG), albeit, I'd think with all the guard play out there, PG would not be a hard spot to get right in the draft (although it does take time for a player to develop).

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 11:17 AM) I would take a a 21pt, 6rb, 3 asst guy, yeah. Blake Griffin and Chris Paul are two guys I could see leaving. The Clippers keep trotting out the same line-up and it's not working. Which is why they are making a huge effort to land Melo. If they don't, I absolutely could see some, if not all of those guys leaving.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:47 AM) Do you know who could help make his defense not matter as much? Jimmy Butler A third tier free agent who emerged into a superstar point guard (4 yr 27M deal...a total an utter bargain). A guy who even after playing great in Phoenix, traded for almost nothing to Boston. Going back to my point, I can't specify who we will get, but I certainly think we could lure / land players to make us better. Hell, we have had hot garbage at point guard and are a .500 team. I can't imagine how much better this team looks like with a real, quality point guard and there are a heck of a lot of them in this league, so I don't find it unrealistic that we could find one.