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

3 Team Blockbuster

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

  • 3 Team Blockbuster

    I'm bored and came up with this one:

    This really winds up being two separate deals:

    First:

    To Dallas:

    JO
    Tinsley
    Quis

    To Indiana:

    Howard
    Terry
    Dampier

    Why it works:
    Dallas rids itself of $105mm in contracts .........taking back only $73mm.

    They get interior presence they have never had before.

    They get a younger PG to mentor under Kidd who has upside with obvious flaws.

    They get Daniels back who gives them length and athleticism at the 2.

    Indiana rids itself ofthe last remaining brawl holdovers and the object offams disgust.

    We pick up a solid young player in Howard and a servicable PG albeit with a huge LT contract.

    We bring back Dampier which excites no one in particular.

    Downside is we pick up an extra $30mm in LT deals.

    Deal #2:

    Miami receives:

    Howard
    Terry

    Indiana receives:

    2nd Pick in draft
    Banks
    Blount
    Filler (could be s & t for Davis or JWill)

    Miami adds 2 all stars to Wade and Marion and pulls a Boston turnaround next season.

    We shed $70mm from the first trade and gain the #2 overall pick either Beasley or Rose which solidifies one of our two major weaknesses.

    Its also conceivable Granger could be subbed for Howard (Miami's option) to keep salaries down and avoid having to take on Davis or Williams.

    Either way we still are solid at the wings.

    Dall: Mia: Ind:

    JO Haslem Dampier/Foster
    Dirk Marion Shawne/Murphy/Ike
    Bass Josh Howard Granger
    Quis Wade Dun/Rush
    Kidd Terry Derrick Rose/Banks/Diener

  • #2
    Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

    Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
    I'm bored and came up with this one:

    This really winds up being two separate deals:

    First:

    To Dallas:

    JO
    Tinsley
    Quis

    To Indiana:

    Howard
    Terry
    Dampier

    Why it works:
    Dallas rids itself of $105mm in contracts .........taking back only $73mm.

    They get interior presence they have never had before.

    They get a younger PG to mentor under Kidd who has upside with obvious flaws.

    They get Daniels back who gives them length and athleticism at the 2.

    Indiana rids itself ofthe last remaining brawl holdovers and the object offams disgust.

    We pick up a solid young player in Howard and a servicable PG albeit with a huge LT contract.

    We bring back Dampier which excites no one in particular.

    Downside is we pick up an extra $30mm in LT deals.

    Deal #2:

    Miami receives:

    Howard
    Terry

    Indiana receives:

    2nd Pick in draft
    Banks
    Blount
    Filler (could be s & t for Davis or JWill)

    Miami adds 2 all stars to Wade and Marion and pulls a Boston turnaround next season.

    We shed $70mm from the first trade and gain the #2 overall pick either Beasley or Rose which solidifies one of our two major weaknesses.

    Its also conceivable Granger could be subbed for Howard (Miami's option) to keep salaries down and avoid having to take on Davis or Williams.

    Either way we still are solid at the wings.

    Dall: Mia: Ind:

    JO Haslem Dampier/Foster
    Dirk Marion Shawne/Murphy/Ike
    Bass Josh Howard Granger
    Quis Wade Dun/Rush
    Kidd Terry Derrick Rose/Banks/Diener
    You can't trade JO until his option expires. That rules out your second trade that includes the #2 pick in the draft.

    Your team rosters are confusing too, you should have separated them. And who's Miami's center? And it's a bit premature to put Shawne at PF over Murphy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

      The first trade can happen anytime I think.

      JO for Terry and Howard with Dampier, Daniels and Tinsley completing it.

      Then the Howard and Terry to Miami for the #2 pick and filler should be able to go through before the draft assuming Ricky Davis agrees to a reasonable sign and trade before then.

      Dallas:
      JO
      Bass
      Dirk
      Quis
      Kidd

      Bench:
      Stack
      George
      Tinsley

      Why it works for them: They make one last big run at title........they dump an extra $35mm in salary in the deal.........Kidd and JO both expire quickly freeing up their annual $44mm to go after FA if it fails. They get to dump both Dampier and Terry contracts which are both bad deals. They get a Terry replacement in Tinsley that may have some upside at a much lower cost and they get much more athletic and long at the SG spot with Quis return.

      Miami:
      Haslem
      Marion
      Josh Howard
      Wade
      Terry

      Bench:
      Cook
      Wright

      Why it works: it immediately vaults them back to the top of the EC with Bos and Det. It likely allows them to keep Wade happy so they get an extension done. In Howard they get a Pippen type guy long term to go with Wade. They make a strong run at a title next year. They will still need to sign a big to a MLE deal and a bench guy or two similiar to what Boston had to do last summer.

      Their center spot is virtually vacant now with Blount so having to sign another big is a priority no matter what they do this offseason and getting out from under Banks and Blount deals only helps with that anyway.

      Ind:
      Dampier/Blount/Foster
      Shawne/Murphy/11th pick
      Granger/Davis
      Dunleavy/Rush
      Rose/Banks/Diener

      Why it works:

      You traded away two players who no longer are part of your LT vision and a total of $73mm in contracts while taking back less than $60mm.

      You get to draft your teams future identity in Rose to give you a Chris Paul type lift to the entire team.

      You still keep the 11th pick to draft a possible JO replacement.

      You breathe life back into the franchise.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

        Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
        The first trade can happen anytime I think.
        As I already explained JO can't be traded until his option expires. He has an ETO (Early termination option) in his contract. He has until July 1 to use it and opt out. If he uses it he's a free agent. If he does nothing then the option expires on July 1 and the Pacers can trade him if they want.

        Since the Pacers can't trade JO until the option expires July 1. That means right now your first trade is impossible, which also scuttles the second.
        Last edited by Will Galen; 05-30-2008, 02:24 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

          Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
          As I already explained JO can't be traded until his option expires. He has an ETO (Early termination option) in his contract. He has until July 1 to use it and opt out. If he uses it he's a free agent. If he does nothing then the option expires on July 1 and the Pacers can trade him if they want.

          Since the Pacers can't trade JO until the option expires July 1. That means right now your first trade is impossible, which also scuttles the second.

          Alright, I'll go along with that but a deal can still be put together prior to the draft pending JO's approval and the expiration of his opt out. O'Neal might even be persuaded to use his opt out and sign anew long term deal with a lower initial base which then takes the Ricky Davis part out of the three team deal.

          All in all, I think its a workable scenario if the three teams want it to happen.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

            Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
            As I already explained JO can't be traded until his option expires. He has an ETO (Early termination option) in his contract. He has until July 1 to use it and opt out. If he uses it he's a free agent. If he does nothing then the option expires on July 1 and the Pacers can trade him if they want.

            Since the Pacers can't trade JO until the option expires July 1. That means right now your first trade is impossible, which also scuttles the second.
            How about we get past this little ETO issue? It's pretty clear teams work around it by "selecting" players in the draft for future use.
            Courtside: Featuring Indiana boys' high school basketball

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

              I appreciate the feedback on the technicalities involved; but what i was looking for was opinions on wheteher or not this might be a good deal for all three teams involved.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

                Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                I appreciate the feedback on the technicalities involved; but what i was looking for was opinions on wheteher or not this might be a good deal for all three teams involved.
                Miami's not going to do this. Wade is still plenty young enough that you can build around him and Beasley/Rose.

                And Howard is nice, but he's not a frontline player that Beasley/Rose have the potential to be. He's a 28 year old wing player, so he basically is what he is. He's a 1 time all-star. Just about every GM would prefer to have either Rose/Beasley than Josh Howard, no matter what the state of their team is in.

                Pat Riley talks a lot and stirs up the press about possibly trading the pick, but it's just that: talk. At the end of the day, he's going to keep whoever is left there at the #2 pick. The last time a pick this high was traded straight up for a player (and not merely a slightly lower draft pick) was when a 22/23 year old Elton Brand was traded from the Bulls to the Clips. Howard isn't 22/23 and isn't getting any better.

                For Dallas, I don't think they do it either. They'd be counting on Jermaine/Tinsley to be healthier than they've been in Indy. What's the guarantee for them that happens? If they play as many games as for them as they have in Indy the past couple seasons, then it's just an outright disaster.

                I suppose they do get a bette cap situation, but if they're looking towards going that route, they won't want any part of Tinsley.

                For the Pacers, it's an outright no brainer. You don't even trade your best asset (Granger), yet you still get a guy who probably has more value than the entire roster combined. In fact, you're doing nothing more than just dumping guys who you're looking to get rid of anyways and you get the #2 pick in a two man draft. Highway robbery.
                Last edited by d_c; 05-30-2008, 07:34 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

                  Originally posted by d_c View Post
                  Miami's not going to do this. Wade is still plenty young enough that you can build around him and Beasley/Rose.

                  And Howard is nice, but he's not a frontline player that Beasley/Rose have the potential to be. He's a 28 year old wing player, so he basically is what he is. He's a 1 time all-star. Just about every GM would prefer to have either Rose/Beasley than Josh Howard, no matter what the state of their team is in.

                  Pat Riley talks a lot and stirs up the press about possibly trading the pick, but it's just that: talk. At the end of the day, he's going to keep whoever is left there at the #2 pick. The last time a pick this high was traded straight up for a player (and not merely a slightly lower draft pick) was when a 22/23 year old Elton Brand was traded from the Bulls to the Clips. Howard isn't 22/23 and isn't getting any better.

                  For Dallas, I don't think they do it either. They'd be counting on Jermaine/Tinsley to be healthier than they've been in Indy. What's the guarantee for them that happens? If they play as many games as for them as they have in Indy the past couple seasons, then it's just an outright disaster.

                  I suppose they do get a bette cap situation, but if they're looking towards going that route, they won't want any part of Tinsley.

                  For the Pacers, it's an outright no brainer. You don't even trade your best asset (Granger), yet you still get a guy who probably has more value than the entire roster combined. In fact, you're doing nothing more than just dumping guys who you're looking to get rid of anyways and you get the #2 pick in a two man draft. Highway robbery.
                  Good post.

                  I think its worse for Dallas than Miami but you may be right that neither would be terribly interested.

                  I get the feeling that Rose is the player going second so I look at Terry and Howard being a pretty good return for Rose especially considering how often the ball is in Wade's hands anyway.

                  Assuming I'm right about Beasley going #1 than I think its a very good trade for Miami personally.

                  Dallas on the other hand surrenders too much for too little. They aren't going anywhere as currently constructed and you can't complain about Tins' $21mm contract when you are dumping Dampier's $35mm and Terry's insane $42mm in the same deal............but trading Howard for JO straight up is a tough one because of the injury issues JO has had.

                  I'll say this though......it's a better trad ethan the one they made for Kidd. And I also think that if they were aable to get Shawne instead of Quisy in the deal, than it would be a no brainer for them. That however would be a deal breaker for me if I'm the Pacers..........Rose isn't Paul/D. Williams good and even if he is close ...........I can't give up S. Williams. I wouldn't trade Shawne for Marvin straight up right now and he was the 2nd player ahead of both Paul and Deron Williams. Many had Marvin #1 ahead of Bogut.

                  If they wanted Ike in the deal , I could live with that.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

                    Originally posted by Plax80 View Post
                    Good post.

                    I think its worse for Dallas than Miami but you may be right that neither would be terribly interested.
                    I just think if they wanted to trade the #2 pick, they could and should get more than Josh Howard.

                    Howard is a fine player and all, but at no point in time has he EVER been a guy who you'd spend the #2 overall pick on. That's all there is to it.

                    And I'm not just saying that now that he's lost some of his luster. I would have said it two years ago when everyone was swinging on his nuts because everyone saw him as the guy who "plays the game the right way". And he's 28, so he's more or less done getting better.

                    At this point in time, I don't think Ike is really going to swing a deal one way or another. I liked Ike (and still do, actually) when my Warriors drafted him, but he's been a disappointment in this league. He's played for 4 different coaches (all of varying styles) and he's gotten less and less playing time with each successive coach. He's got some skills, but he's an undersized guy, he's not terribly athletic and at this point he just does 1 or 2 things well and just about everything else pretty poorly

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 3 Team Blockbuster

                      Originally posted by d_c View Post
                      I just think if they wanted to trade the #2 pick, they could and should get more than Josh Howard.

                      Howard is a fine player and all, but at no point in time has he EVER been a guy who you'd spend the #2 overall pick on. That's all there is to it.

                      And I'm not just saying that now that he's lost some of his luster. I would have said it two years ago when everyone was swinging on his nuts because everyone saw him as the guy who "plays the game the right way". And he's 28, so he's more or less done getting better.

                      At this point in time, I don't think Ike is really going to swing a deal one way or another. I liked Ike (and still do, actually) when my Warriors drafted him, but he's been a disappointment in this league. He's played for 4 different coaches (all of varying styles) and he's gotten less and less playing time with each successive coach. He's got some skills, but he's an undersized guy, he's not terribly athletic and at this point he just does 1 or 2 things well and just about everything else pretty poorly
                      Your probably right. Even if its Rose.......one would think based on how much fanfare these draft picks carry........that someone will give up more for him......I just can't figure out who or what.

                      I don't thik Rose is a very good fit for Miami which is why I think they are putting feelers out there.

                      Rose playing off the ball doesn't seem to fit at all.

                      Chicago would probbaly trade Hinrich and Thomas or Noah for him and maybe Miami likes that better.

                      That would be amazing if Chicago grabbed both Beasley and Rose.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X