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

Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 template Next
  • #1

    Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

    Yes, this is really me, and yes, I'm completely sober.

    The key question that has haunted the Pacers and its fans the past few seasons has remained the same. Would the Pacers team be better off without Artest, without the distractions, without the drama, and without his play that often strays from team ball. We all know the Pacers cannot get fair value for Ron, there is no use discussing that. Pacers likely will be able to get a role player for Ron, maybe a role-playing big guy. But maybe that is all they need now. So the questions haven't really changed, but the Pacers team situation has changed.

    Things have changed, new players have been brought in and the Pacers drafted a rookie who seems like he'll be the real thing. Granger in another season or two will be good enough to man the small forward position and good enough to help the Pacers win a championship.

    Saras has also been brought in to bolster the backcourt. Bender appears ready to contribute. The truth is the Pacers are loaded at the point guard, shooting guard and small forward positions. Jax can slide over and play the small forward, which would allow Fred, Saras and AJ to get more time. So maybe the Pacers would be better of trading Ron for a big guy (non-all-star for sure, but someone who can help us there).

    I've argued for two seasons that the Pacers could not win a championship without Artest, and I've also argued that if the Pacers did trade Ronnie the Pacers would have to make some other significant changes in order to get back up to championship level. But does that argument still hold ? If Granger is as good as it appears, he needs to play 25 plus minutes per game. (sometimes rookies are too good to keep on the bench) So maybe the Pacers would not have to make other significant changes, so maybe if the Pacers make a smart trade of Artest the Pacers as they are currently constructed (minus Artest) can win a championship.

    If the Pacers can trade Artest (yes my keyboard is about to explode) for a role playing big guy - How good would they be. The team would be more stable, so on and so forth, you know all the arguments in favor of trading Ronnie. You also know all the arguments in favor of keeping Ronnie.

    Of course the logical thing to suggest is why not wait (to trade Artest) maybe until February or next summer, let Ron play this season in a Pacers uniform, hopefully his trade value will be a little higher in 10 months and next season Granger will be better and ready to be the starting small forward. Sounds like a logical plan, but maybe Carlisle is sick of dealing with Ron, maybe his teammates are just sick of Ronnie's act.

    We all have to realize how unusual it is for Rick to call players out in the media. Maybe Ron's play during training camp has not been team oriented. Maybe Pacers management and coaching staff now realizes that they are finally ready to move on without Ron and that the team has enough other good players to be better without him. Maybe playing almost a full season without Artest proved to the players, coaches and management that the team runs much more smoothly without Ron's antics.

    In addition to all this, I'm very concerned about Jeff Foster's health right now, he does not seem to be healing, shouldn't he be recovered by from his second hip surgery. I suspect that Foster will be injured for much of the season or at best he won't be 100% all season long. We all know Pollard is only a spot player at this point in his career due to his back, if he has to play 10-15 minutes per game he'll need a month off by the time Thanksgiving comes around. And I don't think David Harrison is ready to be the Pacers center this season. So the Pacers need help at the center position.

    What type of center could the Pacers get for Ron ? Certainly not an allstar. I'm thinking more in the Jerome James or Adonal Foyle level of center. Someone who could help us with the Heat or the Pistons in the playoffs. Someone who can play 25 minutes per game at the center position. NBA history is filled with teams that have traded away a very good player because they have a rookie who is ready to fill the void.

    Some of you are probably in shock; some of you probably think I'm being sarcastic. Well I'm not. What I'm doing is trying to take all my emotions out of it. Keep in mind I have not seen Ron play basketball in about 11 months, and I know once I do see him again all logic will go out the window, I'll realize how much I love him, and how much we need him, but right now I'm trying to look at the Pacers in a cold sober sort of way.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

    I'll take Bird at his word that no one is untradable, including Ron and that anything perceived as improving the team will be done. I'm certain the Pacer's have had feelers out for possible trades all along, but haven't seen anything that they thought worked, or this would have already been done. The Granger factor is certainly a big one when it comes to Ron's value to the team, but remember many teams questioned his health before the draft and we don't know how reliable he will be for 82 games. One thing we have never had to question about Ron is his durability or willingness to play through pain. I remember when he was first traded here and had either a foot or ankle injury and Ron Mercer had to tell Isiah that he would have to take Ron out because he simply would not take himself off the floor. I think this is an issue that the Pacer's can be patient on. Now is not the time to make a trade. I see the Pacer's as being a more mature team that has weathered an enormous storm last year and won't be rattled by controversy very easily. Ergo, Ron will be called out and have his feet held to the fire when he acts out. The Pacer's are not going for playoff position. They want to win it all and will can afford to see how things play out before the trade deadline before acting. That will also put them in a stronger position to trade from as many teams will be out of contention and the P's will know what they have in Bender and Granger, not to mention how strong the other options at 2 are besides Jax, allowing him to be another option at 3 if Ron has to be taken to Bellevue.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

      Great post. I believe Ron is becoming more expendable, especially with Granger here.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

        I really don't know if the Pacers need Artest or not. That's a very discomforting thing, not knowing if your favorite team is better with or without one of their All-Stars.

        The thing that makes me the angriest is that I really believe the Pacers could've received a decent player last year for Artest. Baron Davis was had for next to nothing, imagine what the Pacers might've done with Bditty in the lineup during the playoffs. Antoine Walker - warts and all - might've been enough to get us past the Pistons last year.

        Now the Pacers will have to settle for a Jerome James type player. Ugh. If they could get Adonal Foyle and Mike Dunleavy for Ron and Pollard (I don't know if the salaries match) - that'd be a major coup considering Artest's act this week.

        I fully expect the Pacers to hold out in hopes that Ron gets it together. Hopefully, he'll improve during the preseason to the point that his stock rises. I've just about given up hope that he won't mess up again.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

          I thought two things from the moment you slected Granger.

          1. LUCKY *******S!!!!
          2. He's the perfect contingency plan for Ron. I wouldn't want to lay this much on a rookie but he COULD be as good as Ron one day - better offensively and very good (though predicting anyone to be as good as Ron here is foolish) on defense. But if Ron was to blow up - or the brain trust just decides they can't live with him any more, who better to step into his shoes? Other than maybe Joey Graham who I had rated one spot ahead of Granger.

          There were players out there who were quality guys when you picked who really could have helped fill some needs. Personally, if Wayne Simien gets past his shoulder problems, I look for him to be a 20-10 guy in the NBA year after year - the man's a beast. And if you can depend on Ron your need for a physical post player far outweighs your need for another swingman.

          Just looked at the draft again and I gotta say, when I look at picks 7-14 I can't help wondering what those GM's were thinking.
          The poster formerly known as Rimfire

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

            Thoughts:

            a) One preseason game does not a rookie phenomenon make

            b) One preseason game does not a Bender-breakout make

            c) We won't trade Ron for peanuts. If we had, we would have done it last year. We will either wait until he self destructs (and hope he doesn't take the team with him again) and cut him. Or we'll let him play and get his value up.


            But yes, given what's going lately, Ron seems as crazy and distruptive as ever. Maybe things are different "on the inside" of the team, but it doesn't seem that way from out here.
            You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
            All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

            - Jimmy Buffett

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

              Dumb idea. Wait until the season starts. You think ronnie was taking that preseason game seriously, DOUBT IT.

              I don't think the pacers have a chance of even making it to the ECF this year without another big man.

              Dumbest thing we did was let Dale go. Our time to win a championship is NOW, and why the hell did we need a point guard. AJ is the best backup in the game!

              We have NO big guys worth **** basically. And i'm furious.

              We need to try to trade Sarunas or AJ or fred for a big guy like Udonis Haslem (someone like him, he is basically the modern day dale davis)

              I was against signing Sarunas when it happened and I still am. WE NEED BIG GUYS SO LETS GO GET SOME POINT GUARD.

              But whatever, I have a feeling Tinsley will be traded for a solid big guy. If we sign Jimmie Hunter you can almost BET on it. A lot of teams would LOVE to have a guy like Tinsley i'm sure

              Or maybe, we just let Bender create some "potential" talk and ship him out for a "'REAL" big guy.

              One way or another, that big trade that everyone was talking about...needs to happen before this team can be a serious contender.

              Croshere and Pollard are our big guys right now, laughable.
              *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                IMO, keeping Ron around for a while to possibly build better trade value is not a risk.

                First of all his trade value can go nowhere but up. Secondly, if he is a distraction, then suspend his ***.

                But Doug is totally correct. Let's not get warm and wiggly just because Bender looked decent in one preseason game and Granger is "supposedly" the next coming of Christ.

                Let's see some consistency and some health issues resolved first.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                  Rather than start a new thread I'll add to this one ...

                  With the statements and play in the preseason game, I think Ron dropped his trade value to a bag of peanuts and a beer. With Carlisle calling him out, I think the stage has been set for the Pacers to be able to accept that for him.

                  That being said, we've had "this is Bender's breakout year" before. We've had plenty of "if healthy" players before. As in the past, if all of these blow up in our faces, we'll be in trouble (again). Therefore, there isn't any reason to dump Artest right away.

                  I would expect that no move will be made for Artest until well into the season. I suspect that he will make a steady progression from starter onto the bench and down toward the end of it should he continue to be a problem. With his current salary, benching him is not a horrible thought, and playing him is not going to increase his trade value.

                  I also think that after their play during the suspension, the team is able to handle Ronnie psychologically - they will be able to concentrate on their own play rather than his disruptions, as long as Carlisle shows willing to take him out and sit him down when his play affects the play of others. The press call-out would have reinforced their confidence that he will do this.

                  What we lack this year, as UB pointed out, is a desperate sense that without Ron we are also-rans. So far, the only one who doesn't realize this seems to be Ron.

                  Bottom line is that I expect Ron to either control himself or become a role player. If he drops to DNP-CD status, that beer will taste pretty good in February as long as everyone else is stepping up.

                  How do I differ from those who have advocated trading him in the past? Because I believe that he can still contribute to the team should he choose to and I don't agree that we have lost opportunitites by not dumping him for a used lottery ticket in previous seasons.

                  Now, pardon me while I get my Ron-Ron Fan Club card out of my wallet before it explodes
                  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

                  • #10
                    Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                    My god... UB's become a hater. And a gummy hater at that. Oh, and Ron's an idiot. There, I said it...again.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                      I agree that we need another big man, but I wouldn't bet my future, or a quest for an NBA title, on a rookie and Benders knees. Bring them both, Granger and Benders knees, along slowly until the trading deadline. By then you will know if both are for real or not and know how our season is going. If both are doing well and the season well, but not up to what we all expected, make a trade. Otherwise bring Granger along for the season to get the needed experience and pull the trade in the off season. That way we get a shot at a title, bring the rookie along slowly and if Artest gets through the season with no major flairups, his trade value goes up and makes more sense.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                        Sounds like we need to revisit the Ronnie coming off the bench thread again. Is Rick really trying to set this up? Shoot that's the way they do it around here.
                        You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                          I've lost all respect for you, UB....

                          ...I cry as the hater club increases and the RA FAN CLUB goes down.


                          I still say we should have him here. Off the bench would be fine. But I still think he's needed. Granger hasn't even played in an NBA game. How do you know he's going to do spectacularly? He may turn out to be just an average player, in which case we won't win anything.
                          Don't ask Marvin Harrison what he did during the bye week. "Batman never told where the Bat Cave is," he explained.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                            I disagree strongly that we can't/won't get quality in return for Ron. That was valid LAST year, when he was SUSPENDED and couldn't play for anybody. NOW, he's back playing and he's an all star caliber player. There was a market for Sprewell and lots of other "problem" players in the past and there's a market for Ron now. Plenty of teams desperate for a scorer or fan attraction, etc will roll the dice on the chance to come up big with him.
                            I think it's wise to give it some time and see what happens unless of course Rick/Larry have had it with his crap.
                            If so, I fully expect to get a GOOD player in return.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Maybe the Pacers don't need Artest anymore

                              Originally posted by Suaveness
                              I've lost all respect for you, UB....

                              ...I cry as the hater club increases and the RA FAN CLUB goes down.


                              I still say we should have him here. Off the bench would be fine. But I still think he's needed. Granger hasn't even played in an NBA game. How do you know he's going to do spectacularly? He may turn out to be just an average player, in which case we won't win anything.

                              An average player would contribute more than Mr. Artest did last year.
                              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 template Next
                              Working...
                              X