Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

    Let's see what they are saying

    http://forums.realgm.com/boards/view...f=10&t=1297682
    Impossible Is Nothing

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

      I could see the Bulls being able to sell Lance on this. Bring into the stadium, turn the lights off, play the music, Jordan montage on the video mixed with the idea he can be the "next" one. Sell him on DRose and him being the best backcourt in the league. Tell him he can be the man, show him the money. Warn him about being a "role palyer" for Indiana vs the king of Chicago. Scares me, because I could completely see this happening and him lapping it up. I wish Carmello on them instead, that would take care of Lance going there and make them not a viable contender.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

        This is also from the Knicks board

        http://forums.realgm.com/boards/view...f=24&t=1297716

        Here are some post.

        Re: OT: bulls target melo/james,Stephenson plan b.
        by ibraheim718 on Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:50 pm

        Lance is pretty much the perfect backcourt running mate for Rose.. what Rose lacks in playmaking ability Lance can supplement quite nicely. Stephenson has always had the talent what was missing was the maturity.. and while he may act out a little bit he doesn't go too far anymore. I think this is a terrific plan B for Chicago.. sign a player right before he's about to elevate his game to the next level.



        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by blueNorange on Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:57 pm

        stephenson is soooo overrated, he's playing under a coach who's a disciplinarian.

        quote me on this, the second stephenson signs a big deal and is 'the man'(in his mind) he'll be the same punk that threw his step dad down the stairs.



        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by ibraheim718 on Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:01 pm

        blueNorange wrote:
        stephenson is soooo overrated, he's playing under a coach who's a disciplinarian.

        quote me on this, the second stephenson signs a big deal and is 'the man'(in his mind) he'll be the same punk that threw his step dad down the stairs.


        You don't think Thibs is a disciplinarian?

        And how do you overrate 13/7/5 as the 4th option on offense?




        1
        Re: OT: bulls target melo/james,Stephenson plan b.
        by Pharmcat on Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:25 pm


        the fact that stepehnson is on bulls FA radar shows how much of a talent he is and how valuable he can be

        total shame walsh passed up on him


        Pharmcat
        Global Mod


        Posts: 42435
        And1: 512
        Joined: Oct 4, 2002
        Top


        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by Marty McFly on Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:29 pm

        Pharmcat wrote:
        the fact that stepehnson is on bulls FA radar shows how much of a talent he is and how valuable he can be

        total shame walsh passed up on him


        how many times are you going to repeat this? yeah, walsh shat the bed a lot, but indiana is not nyc. lance would be jr smith 2.0 in a knick uniform right now.




        This post made me laugh

        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by j4remi on Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:06 pm

        My hope is that the Bulls overpay Stephenson to pry him from Indy weakening the Pacers and limiting the Bulls future prospects...But I can't picture Stephenson leaving Indy without a big raise, that team is perfect for him.

        I'd love Stephenson on the Knicks tbh...but I wouldn't trust him to stay focused under this
        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by j4remi on Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:06 pm

        My hope is that the Bulls overpay Stephenson to pry him from Indy weakening the Pacers and limiting the Bulls future prospects...But I can't picture Stephenson leaving Indy without a big raise, that team is perfect for him.

        I'd love Stephenson on the Knicks tbh...but I wouldn't trust him to stay focused under this management.


        RE: OT: BULLS TARGET MELO/JAMES,STEPHENSON PLAN B.
        by AmazingJason on Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:11 pm

        Lance Stephenson is essentially LeBron James but three inches shorter.

        0
        Re: OT: bulls target melo/james,Stephenson plan b.
        by frizzledizzle on Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:39 am

        SuperflyKnick wrote:
        I don't get how the hell is Stevenson plan B after Lebron and Carmelo ? I mean that's like saying ok if I dont get Jordan or Dominique I'll just settle with V maxwell


        He's 23 and Kings fans think he's better than Tyreke Evans. Look how much Evans got paid... Stephenson's not putting up huge numbers in the points category, but he's also on a team where he doesn't have to. Everyone but Paul George averages 13 points or less while Paul George averages like 23. Pacers continue to win.

        In other words... a lot of people think Stephenson can do more if he kept the ball in his hands and was relied on to do more. He's a team player who fills the stat sheet in every area rather than keep the ball in his hands.

        Honestly, he's a mini Lebron. Obviously he's not Lebron, but he's huge for a shooting guard, has the handles and passing ability of point guard, has learned how to shoot and he's hard stop when he drives to the basket. He's so powerful and fast that he usually finishes when he drives to the basket, even if it requires a trick shot.

        If you watch him... his stats are a little misleading. He's a better scorer than 13 points. He just doesn't need to score more than that most of the time. The other night against the Kings, he had 13 points in the first half. He didn't score the rest of the game and the Pacers were up by about 30 in the final minutes. He's just a team player.
        Last edited by Romsey31; 01-16-2014, 08:53 AM.
        Impossible Is Nothing

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

          I think we need to contract Lance on the spring. Do what we did with Paul, don't let free agency happen.

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

            A lot of teams with $$ will be looking at Lance this summer. We need to pay him whatever it takes
            Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

              First, it was DWest and we got him over the Celtics, then it was Hibbert and we retained him from the Blazers. Then, the Lakers was drooling over Paul George and for some reason thought they had a chance, but he's still a Pacers. Of course Hill was prolly wanted by several FO's, but everyone knew he was untouchable. Now we are to Lance and many are wanting, but I think Lance has seen what Larry is about and in Larry he trust. It's stability and Lance will want to continue riding the Pacers train.

              It's so awesome for the league and fans around the world to want our starting line up, BUT THEY CAN'T HAVE THEM!!
              Last edited by Pacer Fan; 01-16-2014, 09:30 AM.
              Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                Other teams will be willing to overpay for Lance because not only will they be adding a budding young talent, but they would also be sticking it to the Pacers. If you're the Bulls, then it would definitely be worth overpaying him because it would sting the Pacers big time.

                The Pacers have no choice, IMHO. You gotta pay the cat whatever it takes. He's too important on the court and I think he has become one of the most important players to the fans. He gets huge ovations and loves interacting with the crowd. After all of the money we shelled out to garbage like Murph/Dun/Ford/Tinsley, it would be pretty hard to accept them letting Lance go. When push comes to shove, I think they will pay him. If they can't re-sign him because of $, then I'd just go back to Florida if I were Bird.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                  Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                  I think we need to contract Lance on the spring. Do what we did with Paul, don't let free agency happen.
                  To late, FA will happen.
                  Garbage players get 1st round picks, (WTF)! All of the NBA must hate the Pacers! LOL

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                    Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                    I think we need to contract Lance on the spring. Do what we did with Paul, don't let free agency happen.
                    Unless his agent is certifiably cognitively damaged, this won't happen.
                    BillS

                    A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                    Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                      Originally posted by Pacergeek View Post
                      A lot of teams with $$ will be looking at Lance this summer. We need to pay him whatever it takes
                      I want to keep Lance at a fair price but Lance is not on the level of pay him whatever it takes. Hibbert will be opt out again the following summer and we need to take that attitude with him while saving the money to be able to do it. Right now I think Larry can move enough payroll to pay Lance 8 mil. I'm of the opinion that if it takes 10 mil or more to keep him then we need to let him walk. I don't want to give up George Hill or jepordize being able to keep Hibbert in order to keep Lance.
                      Larry Bird qouted March 25th. 2015:

                      Bird: I wanted to keep our group together because in the summer, if David and Roy opt out, we're back to zero, really. We don't have that much, so you leave your options open. If we did make a trade, I didn't want to take on a lot of contracts -- because that's what usually happens. Plus, I liked my guys. They're playing well. If we keep the core together and Paul comes back healthy, we'll be right back to where we were.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                        Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                        I think we need to contract Lance on the spring. Do what we did with Paul, don't let free agency happen.
                        He's a second round draft pick and wasn't eligible for a big contract extension because his rookie salary is so low. He'll be an unrestricted FA on July 1. He'll be hard to keep without going into the luxury tax - especially after he makes the All-Star Team, is voted the Most Improved Player, the Pacers defeat the Miami Heat in the playoffs, and win their first NBA Championship.

                        That's a recipe for a near max contract. Example A - Jalen Rose. Example B - Danny Granger. Less complete players who have never won any playoffs series made big paydays last summer. Example A - Tyreke Evans. Example B - Monta Ellis.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                          Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                          I want to keep Lance at a fair price but Lance is not on the level of pay him whatever it takes. Hibbert will be opt out again the following summer and we need to take that attitude with him while saving the money to be able to do it. Right now I think Larry can move enough payroll to pay Lance 8 mil. I'm of the opinion that if it takes 10 mil or more to keep him then we need to let him walk. I don't want to give up George Hill or jepordize being able to keep Hibbert in order to keep Lance.
                          If average players like Tyreke Evans get 10 million, than Lance will get at least 10
                          Being unable to close out a game in which you have a comfortable lead in the 4th Q = Pulling a Frank Vogel

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                            Originally posted by hackashaq View Post
                            They won't. They have at least 1 first round rookie, cap holds, and they plan to sign Mirotic. Possibly two picks (Charlotte's). Even if they renounced all picks (obviously won't happen) and left Mirotic in Europe (probably won't happen, since they'd be left with just Gibson and Noah at big men spots), they'd have some 12 mil in cap space. More likely they'll have around mid level.
                            No guarantee that they can get Mirotic to come over. And even if they did, they can free up some more money by moving guys like Dunleavy and Snell (Teague is already an obvious dump). I would if I were them - I think Lance would be a very good fit on the Bulls. I've said before that they're my nightmare scenario in terms of keeping Lance.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                              Originally posted by Psyren View Post
                              I know it's a business and no matter how much you like a team or management, money always talks.

                              But I haven't felt the way I do about Lance's FA status with any other player.

                              I don't feel like Lance has any interest in another team. These are his guys. He wants to run with THIS team. His boss loves him. His teammates love him.

                              We will offer him a fair deal and I think he stays without much concern.

                              Other players we/other teams have had can say the right thing: "I love this team. I want to stay" and proceed to dart the next day. I truly don't think Lance is like that.

                              It's just a feeling, but a weird feeling at that
                              My guess is that he will have some loyalty to Bird and the Pacers. I said it before....if the difference between the Pacers offer and the best Offer by another Team is $1 mil a year ( probably some offer of $9 mil a year / $36 mil contract offer over $8 mil a year / $32 mil Contract offer )....I think that Loyalty and a chance to play for a near Elite Team wins the day. But if we are talking about $2 to 3 mil a year ( probably some offer closer to $10 to 11 mil a year / $40 mil contract offer compared to a $8 mil a year / $32 mil Contract offer ), I think that $$$ wins the day.

                              Keep in mind...Lance has invested 3+ years of his career here playing on a 2nd Round Rookie Contract. He's earned his stripes and what appears to be a contract for an above Average Starting SG....I would hate it if he left for more $$$ but honestly, I couldn't blame him. He's earned it.
                              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Bulls Eye Lance Stephenson?

                                Originally posted by 1984 View Post
                                I think we need to contract Lance on the spring. Do what we did with Paul, don't let free agency happen.
                                Lance's situation isn't the same as PG24's situation....since his extension wouldn't be the same as what PG24 could get ( cuz he's on a 2nd round rookie contract ). Even I know that it would be stupid for Lance to take the first offer from the Pacers without finding out his true Market Value. He's a UFA...which means that he can see what his market value is and can decide where he wants to go ( regardless of what the Pacers offer ) but that also means that the Pacers can offer a comprable contract in a 5 year contract ( thus having a smaller impact on the Salary Cap .... ie, $44 mil offer / $11 mil a year / 4 year contract compared to a $44 mil offer / $8.5 mil a year / 5 year contract ).
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X