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

Elton Brand?

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

  • #31
    Re: Elton Brand?

    I, too, disagree with this notion that he's "injury prone". I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but here are the facts.

    Over the first eight years of his career he averaged playing 76 games a year. That's hardly what I'd call injury prone.

    During that time, he averaged 20.3 points and 10.3 rebounds per game

    Then, he blew out his achilles at the beginning of last year and separated his shoulder this year. I may be wrong, but I've not heard of any lingering knee problems with Brand.

    I can understand some hesitation to him returning fully from the achilles injury, but to label him as injury prone is incorrect. He's been a very durable and consistent scorer and rebounder. Very under appreciated, in my opinion.

    That said, I wouldn't incude Granger in a trade for him. That would be absurd. I wouldn't mind Brand playing alongside Granger, though.

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Elton Brand?

      brand would be a great pickup. whether we have the assets to acquire him is another question.

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      if the Sixers were in complete rebuild mode, maybe we could trade expiring contracts and a first round pick to get Brand. But Sixers are playing well - so that is why I don't see it as realistic. Sixers need outside shooters - do we have any that they would want
      murphy + expiring + pick or dunleavy + expiring would work. would the sixers take it? i think they'd rather give brand another chance to integrate with the team.

      for the pacers, we can't afford to send out all expiring contracts anyway - it would put us in the luxury tax.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Elton Brand?

        Originally posted by McKeyFan View Post
        Brand is really, really good.

        I don't like the injury trail or the multi-year contract. But I like Brand.

        Really, if healthy, he could be the ideal missing piece for us.
        I agree. The injury recovery concerns makes it too tough to do. And as Galen points out, the Pacers financially have very little chance of being able to do this deal since Philly won't take Dun or Troy back in return.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Elton Brand?

          I'm sorry. Comparing Brand to JO?? Really??

          Let's take a look at how many games they've played each season.

          http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...ort=NBA&id=432

          CareerFG3 PTFTReboundsMisc
          YearTeamGMinMAPctMAPctMAPctOffDefTotAstTOStlBlkPFPts
          1996POR4545869153.45101.0004778.603398512482722646185
          1997POR60808112231.48502.0004589.5068012120117551558101269
          1998POR353103683.43401.0001835.51442559713144144190
          1999POR70868108222.48601.0005798.5829713222918471155127273
          2000IND812641404868.46505.000233388.60124954579498161492282801041
          2001IND7227075431133.479114.071284413.688188569757118174451662691371
          2002IND7728646101260.484721.333373510.731202594796155180661782771600
          2003IND7827886081400.434218.111348460.757193585778164181591992481566
          2004IND441530386854.45216.167295391.754853033888213125881731068
          2005IND511802380805.472310.300261368.709102374476133151271171771024
          2006IND6924614981141.43607.000343447.767153508661167203501822321339
          2007IND421207225512.43905.000121163.74282201283931062087129571
          2008TOR33930171364.47001.00088111.7936016922953701356101430



          Now, look at Brand...

          http://www.rotoworld.com/content/pla...ort=NBA&id=605

          CareerFG3 PTFTReboundsMisc
          YearTeamGMinMAPctMAPctMAPctOffDefTotAstTOStlBlkPFPts
          1999CHI8129996291305.48202.000367536.685348462810155228661322591625
          2000CHI7429065781215.47602.000334472.708285461746240219711182431490
          2001LAC8030205321010.52700.000389524.742396529925191173801632541453
          2002LAC622454451899.50201.000244356.685283420703157161711582041146
          2003LAC692670484982.49301.000411532.773269445714227193641542291379
          2004LAC8130016291251.50303.000364484.752296474770208183621692401622
          2005LAC7930967561435.52713.333440568.775236554790208173812012271953
          2006LAC8030736451211.533111.000351461.761268476744235202771792381642
          2007LAC827452114.45600.0003747.787214364161731521141
          2008PHI26868157348.45100.00071103.689701692393767174170385



          I don't see a comparision. Not really. I find it amazing that some of you discount his whole career based on one major injury. I totally agree with A-Train.

          Also,.......

          I'm sure Brand's on the block - I don't happen to think that's very bright on Philly's part. Right now his worth is as low as it's ever been. Two things could happen - he returns to his former playing level once he fully recovers from the knee injury (he isn't injured any more but it generally takes 2 years to get back to where you were from that) or he stays at the level he's at.

          The fact that he had 6 blocks in his last game may indicate that his athleticism is coming back. IMO Philly should hang onto him a while longer until maybe he becomes worth his salary. If he doesn't, they're no worse off than they are now.

          I don't think Brand is as bad of a fit as some people have been saying. Yes, he's a solid post player but he isn't some lumbering behemoth either - he can get up and down the floor if he's in that kind of system. But I don't see a deal out there that's good for the Pacers.
          When DK is on his meds, like today, he occasionally makes a LOT of sense.

          Are you guys forgetting how bad Amare looked when he came back from surgery? Takes time. Look at him now.

          Personally, I would run, not walk, at the chance to get Brand.

          That being said, I don't think there's any way they part with Elton.

          (Also, given the dramatic change in the landscape of big men for Philly this year, I think it would behove the Pacers to keep an eye on the rehab of Jason Smith. He's odd man out, and recovering from ACL surgery, but based upon my memory, He would be a nice, young fit for us.)


          And just to be funny....

          http://www.realgm.com/src_checktrade...radeid=4959832

          Philadelphia Trade Breakdown
          Change in Team Outlook: +6.1 ppg, +2.4 rpg, and +2.6 apg.

          Incoming Players
          Jeff Foster
          6-11 C / PF from Southwest Texas State
          7.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 25.2 minutes
          Marquis Daniels
          6-5 SG from Auburn
          13.7 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 2.1 apg in 30.7 minutes
          Outgoing Players
          Elton Brand
          6-9 PF from Duke
          14.8 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 33.4 minutes



          Indiana Trade Breakdown
          Change in Team Outlook: -6.1 ppg, -2.4 rpg, and -2.6 apg.

          Incoming Players
          Elton Brand
          6-9 PF from Duke
          14.8 ppg, 9.2 rpg, 1.4 apg in 33.4 minutes
          Outgoing Players
          Jeff Foster
          6-11 C / PF from Southwest Texas State
          7.2 ppg, 7.0 rpg, 1.9 apg in 25.2 minutes
          Marquis Daniels
          6-5 SG from Auburn
          13.7 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 2.1 apg in 30.7 minutes
          Last edited by Skaut_Ech; 01-30-2009, 01:24 PM.
          Hey! What're you kicking me for? You want me to ask? All right, I'll ask! Ma'am, where do the high school girls hang out in this town?

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Elton Brand?

            The injury concern is to great for me to feel comfortable trading for Brand. I don't like his contract either. After this season Dun and Murphy have only 2 more years of contract. Their albatross contracts are getting to where they are tradedable, and I hate to see the Pacers get into another large contract that could restrict their future for years to come. To me Brand isn't worth making the trade for.

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Elton Brand?

              Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
              The Pacers would have the same problem that the sixers have right now, they play up tempo and Brand is more of a half court player, plus he is always hurt and is making way to much money.


              I agree with what you are saying. Just remember once you get your wish that O'Brien is gone, chanz' is that the next Pacers coach won't be playing the same style of game as O'Brien. Brand would have a better chanz of fitting in the offense.

              Still I'd pass on Brand. Plus I don't see Philly doing a trade with the Pacers either. Now, if Bird could work some miracle to trade for Speights I'm all on board. A Speights for Hibbert trade wouldn't bother me one bit.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Elton Brand?

                Originally posted by A-Train View Post
                I, too, disagree with this notion that he's "injury prone". I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but here are the facts.

                Over the first eight years of his career he averaged playing 76 games a year. That's hardly what I'd call injury prone.

                During that time, he averaged 20.3 points and 10.3 rebounds per game

                Then, he blew out his achilles at the beginning of last year and separated his shoulder this year. I may be wrong, but I've not heard of any lingering knee problems with Brand.

                I can understand some hesitation to him returning fully from the achilles injury, but to label him as injury prone is incorrect. He's been a very durable and consistent scorer and rebounder. Very under appreciated, in my opinion.

                That said, I wouldn't incude Granger in a trade for him. That would be absurd. I wouldn't mind Brand playing alongside Granger, though.
                x 2

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Elton Brand?

                  Elton Brand is what this team needs. The only concern is the legnth of his contract and how much he is gettin paid... but you have to ask yourself, what free agents are we really going to get to come to a sub par Indiana team. We aren't going to be able to sign any of the big stars in 2010. At this point I think Elton would be the best big guy we can get. I think we have the pieces to get it done also. A combination of Marquis, Rasho, Murph, Dunleavy would be enticing to Philly IMHO.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Elton Brand?

                    Originally posted by Skaut_Ech View Post

                    When DK is on his meds, like today, he occasionally makes a LOT of sense.
                    Except for mistaking a knee for an achilles.
                    The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Elton Brand?

                      Originally posted by Will Galen View Post
                      Name 2009-10
                      Murphy $11,047,619
                      Dunleavy $9,780,992
                      Tinsley $7,200,000
                      Foster $6,077,500
                      Ford $8,500,000
                      Granger $8,000,000
                      Rush $1,934,160
                      Diener $1,740,000
                      Hibbert $1,575,360
                      Brand $14,858,472
                      Total $70,714,103

                      That's according to Sham and with Brand's salary added. We also have to add at least three more players to the roster, but it would probably be four. Depending on what possible draft picks cost us that could be another $3-4.5 million.

                      So Brand would cost us possibily $6-9 million counting luxury tax. Plus we wouldn't be getting money from the tax so that could cost us another $2 million.

                      So signing Brand would cost us between $8 and $11 million all together.



                      He would put us even further into the luxury tax the following year and we would be losing Diener.

                      Name 2010-11
                      Murphy $11,968,254
                      Dunleavy $10,561,984
                      Tinsley $7,650,000
                      Foster $6,655,000
                      Ford $8,500,000
                      Granger 8,840,000
                      Rush $2,069,040
                      Diener 0
                      Hibbert $1,685,280
                      Brand $15,959,100
                      Total $73,888,658
                      Wow, my bad, **** poor math on my part. But Diener does have a player option, so who knows if he'll exercise it or not.

                      Anyhow I would still do it if I were the Simons because of the huge talent upgrade we would be getting. Then hopefully you can unload Foster for an expiring before next year. Either that, or convince them to take a different combination of players, maybe Foster replaces Rasho for example.
                      Last edited by Taterhead; 01-30-2009, 07:10 PM.
                      "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Elton Brand?

                        I'd trade for Brand as long as it didn't include Granger. The 76ers are worried about keeping Miller next year so they may even be in the market for a point guard. Our biggest challenge would be in what we have to offer after Granger. They may be interested in expiring and either Rush, Hibbert or a 1st. round pick. I don't see trading Murphy, or Dun in a package as something that would get it done unless we gave us some young talent in the process.
                        Granger has a higher trade value then Brand, but they could still get a lot more for him then any combination of our second tier players.
                        Why do teams tank? Ask a Spurs fan.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Elton Brand?

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post


                          But Diener does have a player option, so who knows if he'll exercise it or not.

                          That's a given he'll pick up his player option. He's not exactly a hot commodity to say the least.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Elton Brand?

                            Originally posted by Pacerized View Post
                            I'd trade for Brand as long as it didn't include Granger. The 76ers are worried about keeping Miller next year so they may even be in the market for a point guard. Our biggest challenge would be in what we have to offer after Granger. They may be interested in expiring and either Rush, Hibbert or a 1st. round pick. I don't see trading Murphy, or Dun in a package as something that would get it done unless we gave us some young talent in the process.
                            Granger has a higher trade value then Brand, but they could still get a lot more for him then any combination of our second tier players.
                            I'll suggest an even more stringent approach: Tinsley, Quis & our unprotected (gasp!) #1 for Brand. With our recent push for the playoffs, our pick is unlikely to amount to a future star. For what Brand is now, that's decent value. If I thought he would be All-Star material in four years, I'd offer more, but with his daunting contract AND iffy health status (questionable "full" recovery), well, no Tinsley, no deal.

                            P.S. Justin, I thought about trying to add Nesto & Baston in for your guy, Andre Miller, but I just couldn't work out a reasonable arrangement.
                            Last edited by DrFife; 01-31-2009, 09:04 AM. Reason: Note to Justin


                            "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                            - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Elton Brand?

                              Trading Granger or Ford for Brand would just be dumb. Like, mind-bogglingly dumb. That just creates one hole to fill another.

                              If we really wanted him, though, he could probably be had for Rasho and Quis's contracts.

                              I would steer clear of Elton, due strictly to his injury-proneness. We really don't need JO 2.0 at this point. Which is too bad, because Brand is the type of player we need. We just need him for more than half a season.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Elton Brand?

                                I've started to change my mind on this. I think if we offer Philly a "Reset Button" on signing him by offering our expiring contracts plus a draft pick, we should take the chance on it.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X