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

ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

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

  • #31
    Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

    We have JJ's bird rights, we can offer him upto the MLE regardless of our cap situation. I cant see any team offering him more than MLE with the depth of swingmen free agents this season, so even if it means waiving Cro to avoid luxury tax I say we pay JJ whatever it takes.

    Saras asking for the MLE means that unless we can get DD to take the Vets min, or we are going to lose one of them.
    As someone suggested give DD a 6 yr vet min contract, if that’s what it takes, and pay out the remainder when he retires, ala reggie.

    I think with the addition of Granger, shoring up our forward spots abit, the only remaining hole in this current lineup is PG depth. Give Saras the MLE Larry!

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

      Now, foretaz professes to be the expert, but as I understand it, JJ's restricted, which means we can match any offer. Thanks to the new CBA and the Arenas/Boozer provision no other team can offer more than the MLE in the first year of a contract, which allows us to match it.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

        Originally posted by Kstat
        I don't think that's possible at all. You'll already have like 10 centers on your roster. Plus, big Z will get more than the MLE. 7'3" centers that can score don't grow on trees.
        Well, I was thinking a trade would have to be involved. Would the Cavs want Foster and/or Harrison? And maybe Snow could be included in the deal. I'm looking for any kind of way to move Tinsley
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

          I'm thinking the Cavs want Z, since LeBron has made it clear that he wants them to re-sign him, and it also helps in their quest for Sarunas.

          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

            Originally posted by Kstat
            I'm thinking the Cavs want Z, since LeBron has made it clear that he wants them to re-sign him, and it also helps in their quest for Sarunas.
            I've heard rumours that Lebron has shown more interest in the Cavs signing Eddy Curry as their centre, rather than Big Z (as of late...).

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

              Originally posted by Jermaniac
              **** him, 5 million a year for a guy who never played a minute in the NBA. I rather have AJ and sign maybe Keith McLeod from the Jazz or Jay Williams for like a mil a year.
              Aren't we paying Bender 6 million per year.... and he's not played in the NBA either!

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                Originally posted by beast23
                You're saying that losing JJ is no big deal?

                Yep. That's what I'm saying. I'm saying he's the 10th, 11th, or 12th man on this team. He's not going to play much and I hope those who are able to take a step back will realize that while he is an excellent outside shooter and I'd say very good rebounder as well-especially for his frame-his will be 4th string as best behind Ron Artest, Danny Granger, and Stephen Jackson (barring any unforeseen trades). I figure he'll go to Miami for part of the MLE, ooops, nope, I doubt they want to spend that much on an unproven commodity. I like JJ, too. But there are limitations to the salary cap and with all of the players who are going to command the MLE because of the amnesty waiver exception. It will be a buyer's market and JJ's new contract won't be at a high value.
                Two=the number 2
                Too=means "also"
                To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

                Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
                They're=they are
                There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

                Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                  Am I the only one who would just rather go after Jay Williams anyway?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                    We need to keep JJ if you ask me. I see a lot of potential in that kid. If he could play SG that would be key. I'd rather move Fred.
                    *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                      I'm with you

                      he was a no 2 draft pick 3 years ago, if he can pass a fitness test and has his confidence up, I want to try him a HELL YEAH !!!

                      if he has his fitness and some speed he'll be a good fit... you don't lose a basketball brain in a bike accident, sure it gets rusty but he'll come right..

                      Averaged close to 10 ppg , 5apg, 2.6rpg, 1 spg in 24 min as a rook

                      and i'm all for keeping JJ 2, he's 6'8 and can shoot the ball like no one else he's what Bender should have been minus 2 inches

                      3pt % .396 66/166 Last year in the 75 games he played ( 18 MPG)
                      He'll be a force in a few years...
                      Ya Think Ya Used Enough Dynamite there Butch...

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                        Originally posted by BigMac
                        But there are limitations to the salary cap and with all of the players who are going to command the MLE because of the amnesty waiver exception. It will be a buyer's market and JJ's new contract won't be at a high value.
                        That's probably the one thing you've said that I agree with.

                        I totally agree that the amnesty waiver and the number of free agents available will probably hold down what JJ might get from another team. I originally thought he might command $2.5M - $3M. Although I think it will take quite a bit more than the minimum, I don't think anyone in their right mind would advocate giving him a contract equivalent to MLE dollars.

                        I believe that the Pacers will complete a trade before the season begins, and I think it will probably affect one or more of the rotational players. I also believe that Croshere will be a casualty of the amnesty waiver by the October deadline.

                        Everything is pointing to the Pacers running more next season. That means that what would be a normal rotation of 8-9 players will now become 9-10 players. I fully expect JJ to be part of that rotation.

                        Exactly where JJ is in the rotation depends on several factors.
                        1. Significant progress made by Harrison would reduce available minutes for Granger in the frontcourt, perhaps leading to more consumption of SF minutes by Granger.
                        2. Early in the season, whether Granger is ready to assume many minutes at any position.
                        3. The possible return of Bender, and where he might fit into Rick's plans, if at all.
                        4. Which players will/will not be on the roster after any trades.
                        Until I hear that the Pacers have acquired another perimeter shooter through trade or free agency, I would think it unwise not to retain the shooters that we have, namely JJ.

                        I believe the only reason that the Pacers would not re-sign JJ would be that another team went a little wild in what they were offering him. And at this point, I don't see that happening with the other names that are available. But, I guess we'll now by August 1st or so.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                          oh the intertwinings of all these things....its all of this sort of stuff that makes being in management so provocative....so many decisions to be made....so many factors involved...

                          ok..first off...i think its pretty clear by now....dale, saras, and the MLE have no bearing on the actual contract that is signed by JJ....the pacers have early bird rights on jj meaning they can match anything up to the league average(same as the MLE amount) which will be around the 5 million figure....JJ situation is simple....will the pacers pay him what he might be worth to someone else?...what will someone pay him?...what teams might be interested in him...though i dont think there will be many players released using the amnesty provision, there appears to be a couple that will be that a couple of teams might be interested in over JJ....which means his situation could draw out while teams wait to see who is released....bottom line is the pacers will have to decide what jj is worth salary wise.....and if he exceeds that on the open market, then they probably let him walk...

                          one thing that does play into jjs value to the pacers is the pacers ability to sign saras...or any other outside shooter for that matter....jj is currently the best outside shooter on the team....if the pacers sign saras , jj might be a little more expendable as they would have picked up another great outside shooter....

                          as far as dd and saras are concerned, dale is really the whole key to this situation....because both will have to be signed using the MLE...someone mentioned dale signing for the league minimum for six years.....no can do....if a player signs for the league minimum for his years served(not the 1million exception, which is about 1.6 right now) the maximum length contract he can sign is for 2 years....so that wont work...they though of that potential loophole already....

                          now another problem arises....even if dale signed for the 1 mill exception he couldnt really do so for 6 years...dale is over 36....which means any contract he signs over 4 years will be viewed as deferred compensation and therefore years 5 and or 6 are factored into the first 4 years...so really the max contract dale could sign using this exception would be 4 years and about 7 million....

                          and this is really the key...will dd sign for 4 years and 7 million....when the pacers signed dale midseason, they already had saras in their sights.....now while im sure they didnt think he would probably take all of the MLE i cant imagine they thought he would play for the 1 mill exception either...i also believe that the pacers probably made some sort of gentlemans agreement with dale at the time he signed....and thats the real key....what was it...if dale would happen to sign(which i have my doubts) for the 7 million, then it would leave the full MLE to be used...and that could be used on saras or anyone else if they deemed it appropriate.....

                          now to take it a step further....if dd would sign for the 1mill exception....and jj resigned at about 3 mill per....and saras was signed for the MLE....the pacers could still sign one of the players that is released from the amnesty clause....if that player would agree to sign for the vet min for two years....so say brian grant is released by the lakers....he could be signed as well....or actually any veteran player who wanted to play for the vet min like cliff robinson....not unlike what horry did this past year with san antonio....

                          so it all hinges on dale....now, of course, if things went south in the negotiations with dale....or the pacers get cold feet and change their minds on what they previously offered dale....well then they might have a few more decisions to make....or even if they feel that getting saras is more important than resigning dale and decide to let dale walk....it should be interesting, no matter what happens....

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                            heres some simple numbers....with regard to saras and dale and the MLE...

                            IF, Dale wont sign for the 1 million exception....which would be 4 years and 7 million....

                            saras(before this recent report) supposedly wanted 10 million for 3 years...

                            that would mean the pacers could offer the following using the full MLE between the two players..

                            saras 3 years 10 million....1st year salary just about 3 million

                            dale 4 years and a little over 9 million...1st year salary about 2 million....(realizing dale will not play 4 years but his compensation will be spread out over 4 years...similar to reggie)

                            now if either player wants more than that....then we have a problem....if both players would take those contracts....then we could sign the both of them july 22...and still have the 1 million exception....

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                              Originally posted by Kstat
                              Considering that we don't know his financial situation, and that he comes from a poor country, is it really THAT surprising?

                              His first NBA contract will probably be the largest contract he'll get in his lifetime. Cant blame him for looking to make as much as he can.

                              Come on, last year he earned 2 millions $ playing with the Maccabi, he was the player with the biggest contract in Europe.

                              Compared to other Euro ballers the guy is rich.
                              Compared to you and me, the guy is awfully rich.
                              I think I can blame him if he wants 5 M/year instead of 3.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: ESPN: Sarunas Jasikevicius wants the full MLE

                                Saras can get 3 in EU easily, as simple as that, salaries are improving there, as is attendance.

                                I "tend" to look at the "little" things that "slip" out, and saying that I noticed that when they are talking about re-signing JJ they are saying that it is (pretty sure) he will be re-signed, he's important and such, but while talking about DD htey are "hopefull" and they'll "try"

                                I also think that the "progress" we can not see that perhaps Hulk is making might be a very important factor in what is offered to DD, if he's (hulk) coming along very well then they might take the "risk" on either signing DD for the vet-min or waiting to see if something else "pops-up".

                                I am pretty sure no "promsies" were made, but also that the MLE for Saras was "expected" and that the "hope" concerning DD is found in the 1.6 exception, perhpas with some "added" years.

                                Also despite loving DD, vet-presence in the locker is not a priority, if anything I think that Rggie being there created more difficulties for JO to be a "leader" then anything else, DD coming in "taking" that role will not work that way.
                                We will have a "team-leader" in JO and a "floor-leader" in Tins, nothing else.

                                Also indeed a very important role will play who gets waived over the amnesty clause left right and center.
                                If Grant gets waived I for one am not so 100% sure he will want to go back to Portland, he might well be persuaded to join his best friend on a team going for gold, vet min, and he is every way the warrior DD is.
                                Also if Cliffy gets waived another option is available, don't forget we still have Jeff nad Hulk at that position, with what the Hulk learned in his first year, he might well be of more then great value to us allowing us to not "overpay" DD.

                                What I smell from what I read I would say that JJ baring any ridiculous bids from outside will be retained, Saras if he does not go over the MLE will be signed and DD is in a llist of "would you like to end your career on a contending team" list.

                                The players in the paint they are looking at have all earned their stripes, but also lots of money over the years, for them it is now time to choose, money or the Pacers.
                                I am sure "something" will happen, but we might not know what untill September.

                                As far as people calling JO/Ron/Jax the core, sorry, but I am still pretty sure that the "real" core of this team is JO/Ron/Tins. and that Jax is the starter least sure of his position of all.


                                With JJ, Ron and Granger capable of sliding over to the sg spot we have options and a "pure" shooter is not on the team if JJ does not sign.
                                Jax will not get a chance to score 20+ at the avg he shot last year, Rick will want far higher percentage shots then that, certainly with enough "scoreres" on the team and we haven't even talked about Fred and what might happen if guys like Fred, JJ and Granger are working with Chuck.
                                So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

                                If you've done 6 impossible things today?
                                Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X