Sorry, perhaps I missed, but have you worked out already how much you need and when and for how long? Are you thinking output stream only and never touching the holdings?

Right, the intent is mostly output stream only (pension from work should be about $1500mo/18,000yr and SS about 1200mo/14,400yr, which the SS I won't be touching for several years!).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/872323/000110465918004132/a18-3299_12497k.htm
I also received an email from Oakmark indicating the same.
Excerpt from email:
The Oakmark International Fund will close to new investors at most third-party intermediaries effective 1/26/18.
Excerpt from SEC filing:
PURCHASE AND SALE OF FUND SHARES
Shares of the Fund may be purchased and sold (redeemed) on any business day, normally any day when the New York Stock Exchange is open for regular trading. Such purchases and redemptions can be made through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary, or directly with the Fund by writing to The Oakmark Funds at P.O. Box 219558 Kansas City, MO 64121-9558, or accessing our website (Oakmark.com). You may pay brokerage commissions on your purchases and sales of Institutional Class shares, which are not described in this prospectus.
The Fund is closed to most new investors as of the close of business on January 26, 2018. See "ELIGIBILITY TO BUY SHARES" in the Fund's prospectus for account eligibility criteria.

Given current 10-year Treasury yields I'd say it's right on target. The only way to double that yield (i.e., your 5% notion) is by taking on a lot more risk. You might be comfortable with that.

Okay, I may be about to retire.
My main nest egg is Vanguard, with about $1,000,000 (I also have about $600K in 401K/Roth IRAs—which I don't plan on touching for several years—and $175K in cash/treasuries/savings bonds).
The Vanguard portfolio breaks down as so:

            Total US Stock- $350K
Total Int'l Stock-  200
Energy Fund-   75
Total Bond-  125
REIT Index-  150
(State) Tax Exempt Muni-  100
=========
$1,000,000
For that $1M, the 2017 Income & Dividends works out to:
                    Taxable- $22.5K
Non‐Taxable-   3.0
=======
$25,500

or just over 2.5%!
Even with the low interest rates, I would think that I should be able to get at least 3.5-5%, even while playing it reasonably safe.
Should this portfolio be radically revamped or just tweaked (maybe take 100K out of Total Stock and open a more income/dividend rich index/sector?)?
Or is 2.5% reasonable/acceptable, given current conditions?

PIMIX is my largest bond holding and yes, it's struggled over the past few weeks for sure. I've been looking at LSYFX but it does seem a bit volatile in that category. Any thoughts on LFRAX ? It seems to be a tamer fund.

LFRAX (assuming it is load waived) is a fine bank loan fund. While not as robust as EIFAX and LSFYX it was positive in 2015 unlike many in that category. But you wouldn’t have wanted to be in bank loans anyway that year. In bull markets in this sector ala post February 2016 it is pretty much straight up with little to no volatility along the way. While PIMIX/PONDX is not my cup of tea and don’t expect returns like the past two years, it is still an excellent fund. It is hard to hop on and off where the momentum is unless you can discern such momentum sooner than later. Most always seem to be weeks to months late to the party.

Really interesting proposal.
Touches on a lot of issues that many people will say don't apply to them. Such as Americans having to save more (e.g. than in other countries) because they're taking on more risk and getting lower returns than they'd get with defined benefit (pension) plans or equivalent (annuities). Such as investing not being most people's forté (thus they underperform DB plans and the market). No one here, of course. :-)
Also acknowledges that annuities transfer wealth to the affluent (since the affluent tend to live longer). On the flip side, notes that the affluent don't need tax breaks to motivate them to save for retirement.
The article also makes brief allusion to the annuitization puzzle (why most people don't annutize when that is the rational choice).
I like the idea the the first $600 of contributions would be covered by a refundable tax credit, so everyone would be treated the same way - just as everyone pays the same 10% income tax on the first N dollars.
A compact column on a proposal that won't go anywhere, but offers a lot to think about.

https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/38025/a-mfo-fave-shines-and-gaffney-regains-her-touch#latest
It worries me bank loans are rapidly becoming groupthink as well as seriously overbought. Junk corporates are seriously lagging equities. World bond looking and performing the best. The big three of PIMIX, PTIAX and PMZDX struggling as expected.

FYI: Yes, there's a way to provide an adequate retirement for everyone, not just the affluent.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-01-25/the-argument-for-ditching-the-401-k-and-starting-over

Currently, in my income sleeve my average yield is 3.41%, my average duration is 3.0 years and my average maturity is 5.3 years. With this, I am not doing much. However, I am thinking of removing one of my shorter duration and lower yielding funds (LALDX or THIFX) and replacing it with a multi-sector income fund (FSTAX). Over the past two years FSTAX has had much better performance (about double) over LALDX and THIFX. My holdings within this sleeve are BAICX, CTFAX, FMTNX, GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX. Most likely, the one that will be removed is THIFX. I might even go with a 18 mo to 24 mo CD with yields ranging from 2.0% to 2.3%. Yield on THIFX is 1.87%. Until recently the CD, from a yield perspective, was not a viable option.

@PBKCM, love using portfolio visualizer!
I inputted your 3 some and compared it to AOA, which by the way is not a very good comparison at 80% equities since your 3-some ends up being about 65% equity after the L/S thing gets figured out. You were right about that comparison. I also compared your 3-some to AOR which is 60:40, a much closer comparison and again your 3 ETF portfolio plays well.
But then I tested a portfolio using QQQ + RSP + VTBIX (Vanguard total bond market) . My 3-some using the total bond market did better than your 3-some which used the market neutral etf BTAL. Your 3-some grew $10,000 to $18,700 over a 6 year stretch, pretty good. My 3-some, substituting the total bond market for your market neutral fund went to $20,600.
Which just confirms to me, these market neutral, long short, whatever you want to label them funds are a marketing gimmick. A straight out balanced fund or portfolio will do better for 99.9% of average investors over most any investment range.

Thanks, @MikeM.
When I ran it, QQQ+RSP+BTAL had lower std dev (5.79% to 7.26%), lower drawdown (-3.44% to -5.61%), higher Sharpe (1.79 to 1.66) and higher Sortino (3.83 to 3.37) than QQQ+RSP+VTBIX. Risk adjusted, the BTAL combo was better.
But you are right, QQQ+RSP+VTBIX did outgain the BTAL combo.
If we are in a bear market for bonds, VTBIX may not perform as well in the future as it has in the past . . .

@MM, what correlation basis period do you use, and why? Note that (for example) when you enter PDI and DSENX, daily returns (60 days) correlate 0.35 while annual correlate 0.94.

@PBKCM, love using portfolio visualizer!
I inputted your 3 some and compared it to AOA, which by the way is not a very good comparison at 80% equities since your 3-some ends up being about 65% equity after the L/S thing gets figured out. You were right about that comparison. I also compared your 3-some to AOR which is 60:40, a much closer comparison and again your 3 ETF portfolio plays well.
But then I tested a portfolio using QQQ + RSP + VTBIX (Vanguard total bond market) . My 3-some using the total bond market did better than your 3-some which used the market neutral etf BTAL. Your 3-some grew $10,000 to $18,700 over a 6 year stretch, pretty good. My 3-some, substituting the total bond market for your market neutral fund went to $20,600.
Which just confirms to me, these market neutral, long short, whatever you want to label them funds are a marketing gimmick. A straight out balanced fund or portfolio will do better for 99.9% of average investors over most any investment range.

So it's not honoring all the Scottrade pricing after all. The short term trading fee at Scottrade is $49.00, not $49.99.
See Brokerage Commissions & Fees (this pdf was modified last June, so I assume it's current, unless someone has a newer fee schedule). Specifically, footnote 5:

In addition to the commissions above, all no-load shares purchased from Scottrade and held 90 days or less will be charged a $49 short-term redemption fee. Exceptions to this short-term redemption fee are the Rydex, Guggenheim, ProFunds and Direxion families of funds, which are intended for short-term traders.

The $49 fee is consistent with what Junkster wrote above: At Scottrade " If I sell within three months I am charged $66". That's the $17 commission (for the TF fund sale) plus the $49.00 short term trading fee.

I've had BTAL in a tracking portfolio at Google Finance for a number of years and have yet to be impressed with the returns during time frames. The lone exception was during late 2015 through mid-2016. Our IG bonds offset any equity struggles at the time. BTAL may be viable during a prolonged down period in the equity sectors. I surely can't say.
The below link for total return graphic includes BTAL , QQQ , RSP and AOA. The graphic start point date is limited by the youngest inception of these funds.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?BTAL,QQQ,RSP,AOA&p=6&O=011000

I think BTAL is a hidden gem ETF. It is market neutral anti-beta --> 50% long low beta and 50% short high beta. It works to diversify a portfolio and protect in drawdowns.
Go to PortfolioVisualizer at https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio and test QQQ, RSP and BTAL equally weighted, rebalanced quarterly. I measured the portfolio against AOA (iShares Aggressive) and it matched the return with far less volatility and drawdown, much higher Sharpe and Sortino.

This morning I got an email from TDA explaining the transfer from Scottrade to TDA including a fee schedule which does NOT include commissions. It only mentions a fee of $49.99 for Mutual Fund Short-Term Redemption without explaining what they mean by short-term. There is also a Trading Fee for Commission-Free ETF Short-term of $13.90. It also states that commissions for transaction fee mutual funds will remain the same.
By February 16 I must notify them if I want to transfer my account free of cost to another company otherwise there is a $75 charge. So I have another three weeks to decide and I will as good as I can research all the suggestions you people kindly provided.

How many funds do you have? are they standard vanilla ones or will you be interested in small funds not run by major companies?
I dont use Scottrade but left TDAmeritrade as I thought their customer service was spotty.
Fidelity is a good compromise. lots of funds most of the ones you would want with good customer service and huge base
Vanguard ( where I also have accounts) is an acquired taste. Your fees will depend on how big your accounts are. With more than $500,000 fee only mutual funds are only $8
There are some funds at Vanguard almost unavaliable elsewhere but not many. Their entire platform is designed for people who dont do much trading, buy into the index philosophy and don't buy more than the occasional stock. It can be irritating if you want decent charting, in depth research and quick customer service

I looked at alternatives ( L/S, Merger, futures, even market neutral) a year or so ago, because I thought stocks and bonds were overpriced even then and cash paid so little. I came to the same conclusion about L/S funds as David but BPLSX was closed (somehow SFHYX escaped my radar) so I started a position in it's global cousin BGLSX/BGRSX. It has done pretty well and seems to be positioned to avoid huge draw downs.
All of the other alternatives are reasonable, ie more cash, options etc, although the performance of FPACX has not inspired confidence in the last three years ( it lost more than the SP500) in Jan 2016, making me wonder what was involved.
One of the problems with mutual funds is you are investing in someone else's ideas about returns, safety and risk. Usually they are consistent, and reliable but not always. Of course the farther away from "bread and butter" diversification ( major asset classes, cash as ballast etc ) the more of a black box.
Certainly a portfolio with 30 to 50% cash will be significantly less volatile, but your returns will lower. There is a greater argument to made for cash with a 25 return now than a year ago
The key is 1) know what return you need and be sure you won't stick your neck out and get burned and 2) know exactly what you will do when a crunch comes and the market is down 20 % . If you can't stand the heat...

I have an account with Scottrade - I have confirmed that as part of the transfer to TDA the transaction fees for mutual funds will remain $17.

That's great!
TDA has lots of different fee schedules written up - the standard retail one (no maintenance fee, 180 day short term NTF fee), one HSA I had (briefly) with a maintenance fee, another HSA schedule with lower than standard fees, etc. I was concerned since TDA had not provided a separate price sheet for transitioned accounts, it pointed to a document with its standard fees, and it was coy about pricing.
The only actual number it put in writing was for equities, which at $6.95 it described as "low". These days, that's 40% higher than Schwab, Fidelity, or Ally (Trade King), and more than double Firstrade . $6.95 isn't a lot, but calling it low is PR.
I hope they'll also honor the Scottrade90 day period for short term NTF trading (instead of requiring you to hold funds for 180 days).