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

How about Artest to Hornets

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

  • #46
    Re: How about Artest to Hornets

    Originally posted by Moses
    If we want Maturity, Why not put Larry Bird there?

    Why trade the best SF and probably a top 3-4 player in the game today..For a guy like Magloire? I realize Magloire is a great Center..But we have a glut of centers as it is..If Artest messes up again, which I don't think he will, Then I'm all for trading him. But as it is right now, I'm not about to trade away our best player when we are on the verge of a championship season. If Granger develops into the player everyone says he's going to be, Then I can see us trading Ron in the future when he asks for alot of money.

    Alot of people on here seem to think as long as Ron Artest is in a pacers uniform, We can't win a championship..Well I'm pretty much exactly the opposite of that. Sure the guy is a little crazy, But I think he's going to improve after being suspended for so long. I'm not about to lose out on a championship season just because there is a small chance Ron Artest could mess up again. The worst that could happen is a few tech fouls..Rasheed gets those all the time..But you don't see the Detroit fanbase screaming trade Rasheed.

    Bottom line, Ron Artest brings intensity, skill, defense, and offense to the table. No other player in the league is as talented an all around player as Ron is. Besides, I don't think there is anything Artest can do that will result in a season long suspension. On top of that, If Prince gives Artest fits next year in the ECFs..We always have Granger to fall back on and use against him. Think about it..We don't even need another low post scoring option unless it's coming off the bench.

    And as for the ECFs a year ago..That was one big acting job by Detroit.
    1) If Bird could suit up, obviously he would go there.

    2) I hope you're right, because if Artest can keep it together then he is a top 5 player. I've always said he was, but he has let me down too many times.

    3) I don't know how you can say that the chance of him screwing up is small. He has had issues every single season he has been in the league, thats why Chicago dumped him off for Jalen and Travis.

    4) It would not take much for Ron next year to get a life long suspension. He will be watched like no other player in history. One broken camera, one flipping off of the crowd, one fight that he starts and escalates into a bench clearer will result in a season to life long suspension IMO.

    5) If you're admitting that Prince gives Artest problems, then why should we not get a player who isn't bothered by the starting small forward of the team who has put us out 2 years in a row?
    House Name: Pacers

    House Sigil:



    House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: How about Artest to Hornets

      Originally posted by Since86
      Like I said earlier this week, it's pretty much Affirmative Action at the pro-basketball level, which I'm against at any level.

      If you paint that picture for Michael Jordan, I'm going to hold the stance that he didn't deserve to be there.

      I might be mistaken, but I believe in 03-04 Brad was voted in by the fans. That's a whole different discussion entirely, but has major impact on who does/doesn't deserve to be there. Being picked by coaches means you play to be there, being voted in means your liked enough for people to want to see you there.
      You are mistaken, Brad was a reserve. Players with an * were starters.

      2004 WESTERN CONFERENCE ALL-STARS

      Head Coach: Flip Saunders (Minnesota)

      Player (Team) Pos. Ht. Wt. All-Star Selections
      *Kobe Bryant (L.A. Lakers) G 6-6 220 6
      *Tim Duncan (San Antonio) F 7-0 260 6
      *Steve Francis (Houston) G 6-3 200 3
      *Kevin Garnett (Minnesota) F 6-11 240 7
      *Yao Ming (Houston) C 7-6 310 2
      Ray Allen (Seattle) G 6-5 205 4
      Sam Cassell (Minnesota)** G 6-3 185 1
      Andrei Kirilenko (Utah)** F 6-9 225 1
      Brad Miller (Sacramento) C 7-0 261 2
      Dirk Nowitzki (Dallas) F/C 7-0 245 3
      Shaquille O’Neal (L.A. Lakers) C 7-1 340 11
      Peja Stojakovic (Sacramento) F 6-10 229 3

      I agree that there is some affirmitive action(which I also disagree with at any level, basketball..etc) in the decision. I just will not hold that against any player picked. I just believe that any player picked is not at fault about the circumstances in which they were picked. If they're there, they deserve to be, IMO.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: How about Artest to Hornets

        Originally posted by Since86
        Like I said earlier this week, it's pretty much Affirmative Action at the pro-basketball level, which I'm against at any level.

        If you paint that picture for Michael Jordan, I'm going to hold the stance that he didn't deserve to be there.

        I might be mistaken, but I believe in 03-04 Brad was voted in by the fans. That's a whole different discussion entirely, but has major impact on who does/doesn't deserve to be there. Being picked by coaches means you play to be there, being voted in means your liked enough for people to want to see you there.

        You are wrong on this, Brad was selected by the coaches.
        House Name: Pacers

        House Sigil:



        House Words: "We Kneel To No King"

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: How about Artest to Hornets

          Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
          I agree that there is some affirmitive action(which I also disagree with at any level, basketball..etc) in the decision. I just will not hold that against any player picked. I just believe that any player picked is not at fault about the circumstances in which they were picked. If they're there, they deserve to be, IMO.

          I'm not holding it against him. He's an above average center, no doubt about it, but he's NOT all-star caliber.

          If you don't believe in affirmative action, then there's no way you can say that people deserve to be there, just because they're selected. That's the whole point of the action, to deversify a workplace by lowering standards to make sure a certain number of minorities are there.
          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: How about Artest to Hornets

            Originally posted by Since86
            I'm not holding it against him. He's an above average center, no doubt about it, but he's NOT all-star caliber.

            If you don't believe in affirmative action, then there's no way you can say that people deserve to be there, just because they're selected. That's the whole point of the action, to deversify a workplace by lowering standards to make sure a certain number of minorities are there.

            I was referring to Jordan being picked. That was clearly "affirmitive action." It wasn't HIS fault though, so I'm not going to hold it against him.

            Brad and Magloire were picked, IMO, because the coaches thought they were teh best players available.

            If you make the allstar roster, you deserve to be there, IMO.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: How about Artest to Hornets

              Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
              Brad and Magloire were picked, IMO, because the coaches thought they were teh best players available.

              If you make the allstar roster, you deserve to be there, IMO.
              When there's a calling for one more PF player, and forgo the center position, you hardly deserve to be there.

              The Jordan reference was to you saying do I believe Brad deserved to be there on those numbers. I don't care if it's MJ, Wilt, or Russell, if they don't put enough good enough numbers then they don't deserve to be there.

              Giving an all-star spot to someone with not enough qualifications, is the affirmative action, not the Jordan reference.
              Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                Originally posted by Since86
                When there's a calling for one more PF player, and forgo the center position, you hardly deserve to be there.

                The Jordan reference was to you saying do I believe Brad deserved to be there on those numbers. I don't care if it's MJ, Wilt, or Russell, if they don't put enough good enough numbers then they don't deserve to be there.

                Giving an all-star spot to someone with not enough qualifications, is the affirmative action, not the Jordan reference.

                Who exactly are the allstar centers, in your opinion?

                Shaquille, Yao, Ben, and Illgauskis?

                Those are the only centers I would put above Magloire and Brad. If you say Brad, you have to include Magloire as well. Their numbers are basically identical, give or take. I'm not talking about Magloire's stats in 20 something games. I'm talking about the heatlhy Magloire we saw in 2004.

                Brad and Magloire are all stars. The center position is not what it was a decade ago (Shaq, Hakeem, Drob, Ewing, Zo, etc). There is supposed to be a certain number of centers picked. It doesn't matter if there are better forwards or not. If Brad and Jamal are the best centers remaining, they deserve to be picked.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                  Originally posted by Mourning
                  Yeah, whatever happenned to the "Granger is an insurance IF things go wrong with Ron"-policy? Whatever happenned to that? And when was that put forward? Oh yes ... 3 nights ago.

                  Regards,

                  Mourning
                  Please post where Pacers management said that.
                  Oh right, that was HERE, but Artest fans.
                  Some of us are more than ok with Granger REPLACING Artest

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                    Originally posted by Moses
                    You guys need to ignore Diamond Dave.

                    He's a freaking anti-artest fanatic..This is another one of his crazy *** trades. Just stop making posts..Everyone involves a bash to Artest or some plot of trading him for dirt and a bag of rocks.

                    And I'm not even gonna bother on the post above me..Good lord. Don't ever make a post again..This is as bad as reading some of the garbage over at Indystar.
                    I've got a month old unwrapped snickers bar that I'd trade him for.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                      Originally posted by PacerMan
                      Please post where Pacers management said that.
                      Oh right, that was HERE, but Artest fans.
                      Some of us are more than ok with Granger REPLACING Artest
                      I wouldn't call Jay an Artestfan and there were more of the "darksiders" that agreed to it.

                      I agree Granger is a great insurance policy for Ron, BUT the difference is that I ALSO would have wanted the Pacers to keep Ron even without this insurance, so it's more logical for the "darksiders" to adhere to Granger as a safetybelt than it is for us "Artestjunks".

                      I guess it's the real "he's gotta go no matter WHAT!!!"-kind of types, like you, that well want him out "no matter WHAT!!!" and then expect the team to do ... better as this last season? And than also without Reggie frequently bailing us out?

                      Still can't believe you want a rookie to replace a DPOTY All-star forward btw that's just irresponsible, look at what happenned this last season when we had a pathetic SF positioning pre-Jackson coming back from suspension.

                      Regards,

                      Mourning
                      2012 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2011 PD ABA Fantasy Keeper League Champion, sports.ws

                      2006 PD ABA Fantasy League runner up, sports.ws

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                        Originally posted by Moses
                        Artest messes up again, which I don't think he will, Then I'm all for trading him.
                        Really?

                        If you truly believe this, then you should have no problem with those of us who took the same stance toward Ron last offseason (or any offseason that Ron has been here, really), and have stuck to it.
                        You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                          Artest for Magliore is the dubest trade known to man. It doesn't really make our team better, it just adds a player that isn't really that important to the team we have right now and also adds another player -- in the middle that's going to want playing time. There's a whole new problem.

                          Putting myself in Larry's shoes, I see exactly what he's thinking. Keep Ron. Let him make or break HIMSELF. The entire team is not likely to go down like before if he has an episode and Granger is there to step in if Ron doesn't pan out. We can terminate Ron's contract (I believe there is a rule on this) if he engages in further misconduct, so why try trading him for someone we don't really need or someone that really isn't equal value? We have our insurance (Granger), I highly doubt a "brawl" like situation will happen again, so IMO we don't have much to lose in keeping Ron and giving him a chance...

                          Let me reword that last sentence, and make sure to save it where you can find it in the future.

                          What's the difference between trading Ron for a lesser talent and letting him play, blow up, ruin his career, and have Granger step in? Either way we lose something, but either way we don't lose much. On the other hand, keeping Ron and having him go through the season and beyond trouble free we have a dominant player that makes us a serious championship contender for years to come.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                            Originally posted by Since86
                            Someone who gets there because there's no deserving candidates is hardly an all-star. He's that little boy that was on the All-star team during your local pee-wee league baseball diamond. Was on the team for the number factor, but just sat in a corner and played with his gum.

                            He deserved to be on that team just as much as Edwards deserves to be on this Pacer team.
                            I know this was early on the first page, but I wanted to grab this. Because as I recall, Magliore was close to being the best player on the court for the East for a good portion of the game. In fact, I think at one point the announcers theorized that it could be the first time that a bench All-Star won the MVP.

                            I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

                            I think this would be a great trade - getting PJ Brown would also be fantastic, I've wanted him on this team for a long time. Of course, as has already been noted, the Hornets love the guy so we won't be getting him.

                            IndyToad
                            Helped by friendly giant

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                              Originally posted by indytoad
                              I know this was early on the first page, but I wanted to grab this. Because as I recall, Magliore was close to being the best player on the court for the East for a good portion of the game. In fact, I think at one point the announcers theorized that it could be the first time that a bench All-Star won the MVP.

                              I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.

                              I think this would be a great trade - getting PJ Brown would also be fantastic, I've wanted him on this team for a long time. Of course, as has already been noted, the Hornets love the guy so we won't be getting him.

                              IndyToad
                              Helped by friendly giant

                              Well, as it turned out, a bench player DID win the MVP that game. Shaquille O'Neal was the MVP that game, and did not start(Yao did).

                              But yes, Magloire played extremely well.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: How about Artest to Hornets

                                Originally posted by tora tora
                                I'll take Foster over Magloire anyday.

                                I fully agree. Magloire is not a better defender then either Foster, or DD.
                                In 30.6 min. he ave. 8.9 boards, and 11.7 points. This on a really bad team. He's 6'11", and 259.
                                By comparison Foster averaged 9.0 boards, and 7.0 points in 26.1 min., extend this to the same playing time, and you get 10.6 boards, and 8.3 points on a far better team.
                                Dale averaged 8.9 boards, and 6.9 points in 29.2 min. while playing with the pacers last season.

                                I'd say Magloire is comparable, but not better then either Foster, or DD.
                                We'd be giving up Artest for nothing. If we want to do that, just cut him instead of Cro with the Amnesty waiver.
                                Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X