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

Look back at Pacers Trades

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

  • Look back at Pacers Trades

    Hit or miss: A look at the past 15 years of Pacers drafts
    June 14, 3:12 PM · Add a Comment
    Add a CommentShareThisFeed

    For every Danny Granger, there is a Shawne Williams. For every Al Harrington, there is a David Harrison. For every Travis Best, there is a Primoz Brezec. For every Jamaal Tinsley, there is…well, Jamaal Tinsley.

    Ah, the perils and rewards of the NBA Draft. Just like a good game of Battleship, the Indiana Pacers have a “hit-or-miss” history with draft picks. The best part of revisiting old drafts is seeing the "what ifs" and "shoulda, woulda, coulda" that seems so easy with 20/20 historical vision.

    When I received a text from a friend last weekend that read, “List your top five worst Pacers draft picks from the last 15 years….go” it took a little longer to figure out my response than I thought. After I hastily drew up my top five worst picks from memory, my friend, a diehard Celtics fan, communicated another Pacers fan’s counterarguments. We went at each other like the Beatles during the White Album sessions. We had our personal favorites that clouded our judgment, we were using different criteria to measure success, we remembered things differently and I’m pretty sure that Yoko interjected her own opinions on his thoughts.

    I realized right away that I needed to sit down, study the stats and crunch the numbers while I figured out a true list of the worst five picks since 1994. Initially, I hastily included Austin Croshere, Primoz Brezec and Eric Piatkowski on the list. I immediately attacked the white guys, but upon further review, they should only receive honorable mention. After studying the list of players, I realized you’ve got five categories for draft picks: the good; the bad; the bad who become worth something; the rookies drafted through a trade; and the questionable/arguable/fan favorite.

    So in order to finalize the worst five picks from the 1994-2009 era, here is an introduction to a discussion:

    THE GOOD:
    Out of the 15 first-round picks that have been selected, or traded for, by the Pacers since 1994, only three of them can be declared as great picks. All three were picked up late in the first round and all three exceeded expectations. In an ESPN statistical formula designed to show the success of draft picks based on player’s actual production and expected value, only four first-round Indiana picks since 1989 net positive results (Roy Hibbert being the most recent). The other three make up the “good.”
    Travis Best (23rd pick, 1995)
    Al Harrington (25th, 1998)
    Danny Granger (17th, 2005)

    THE BAD:
    There are three draft picks since 1994 that shouldn’t have happened. They are:
    David Harrison (29th, 2004)
    Shawne Williams (17th, 2006)
    Primoz Brezec (27th, 2000)

    THE BAD, WHO BECAME GOOD:
    There are three more bad picks, but former GM/President Donnie Walsh turned trash into gold by trading them for good players. Starting in 1994, Eric Piatkowski (15th) was drafted and immediately shipped to the Clippers for Mark Jackson, a move that locked down the Pacers point guard position for the next six years, while allowing Piatkowski the chance to provide nine mediocre years in ClipperLand, an amusement park that rivals Wally World when it’s closed for construction. It's the kind of place that invites you to punch the moose in the nose. Walsh repeated the move in 1999, when he drafted Vonteego Cummings (26th) and immediately dumped him to Golden State for Jeff Foster. The other pick was Erick Dampier (10th, 1996).

    THE “TRADED” PICKS
    Four times in the past 15 years, the Pacers have made trades for first-round picks. Two of them happened last year, but before the Hibbert and Rush acquisitions, the Pacers made disastrous decisions that fatally altered the franchises’ history. They were:
    Jonathan Bender (5th, 1999)
    Jamaal Tinsley (27th, 2001)
    More on them later…

    THE QUESTIONABLE
    These two picks pull the heartstrings of Pacers fans in different directions. Austin Croshere (12th, 1997) and Fred Jones (14th, 2002) both provided solid seasons, but also disappointed fans as they never lived up to our imagination. My personal hatred of Croshere clouds my judgment about him, but something must be said for his love from other Pacers fans. He always received the biggest ovation off the bench and his community support and media personality proved valuable to the franchise, even though his contract did not.

    I will always remember Jones for being part of my second-favorite game at Conseco “Reggie Miller” Fieldhouse when he led a team of only six players the day after the infamous brawl. Jones scored 31 points, played all 48 minutes in front of the loudest crowd ever at the Fieldhouse in a three-point loss to Orlando. I liked him enough to drop $70 on his jersey soon after. Although he never reached that level again, he was still fun to watch and the Pacers paid him $6 million less than Croshere. That has to count for something.

    So those are all the draft picks to choose from. Things to consider when devising the list: strength of draft; who was drafted after the Pacers pick; how high was the pick; did the team ever get anything out of the pick; and salary. Finally, here is my top five worst Pacers first-round draft picks of the past 15 years:

    5. David Harrison – In Harrison (29th, 2004), the Pacers actually drafted a four-year subscription to High Times. The turnover-prone, pot smoking center averaged five points per game during his stretch with the team, before the Pacers let him go into the oblivion of free agency for nothing in return. Harrison was chosen in a weak 2004 draft at the end of the first round and there weren’t many other good choices for the Pacers in this spot, so I couldn't rank this pick any higher, even though Harrison would want it that way (insert rim shot here).

    4. Erick Dampier – Dampier played one year for the Pacers (averaged five points in 72 games in the Blue and Gold uniform) before being traded for Chris Mullin, who played two good years during the Larry Bird era. Dampier went on to be a good player, but he suffered from a bad case of the “Austin Croshere Syndrome”, a disease that gives mediocre players huge contracts that make them franchise killers. Unfortunately, there is no cure.

    The reason Dampier makes the cut is the fact that the Pacers used the 10th pick on him in a stacked 1996 draft. The Pacers had plenty of choices: Kobe Bryant (13), Peja Stojakovic (14), Steve Nash (15), Jermaine O’Neal (17), Zydrunas Ilgauskas (20) and Derek Fisher (24) to name a few.

    3. Shawne Williams – After the No. 9 pick of the 2006 draft, only one other player has averaged more 10 points per game for their career. Although the draft was stacked in the top eight, the teams drafting later didn’t have much of a chance for success. Unfortunately for the Pacers, they rolled the dice on a freshman from Memphis, instead of taking someone such as Rajon Rondo (21) and Jordan Farmar (26). The pick proved costly has Williams was as unproductive on the court as he was off of it. His inability to shed bad influences resulted in bad PR for a team couldn’t have any. Ultimately, he was traded after two seasons for Eddie Jones, who chose to retire rather than move to Indiana, and two second-round picks. That’s not exactly getting your money back.

    2. Jamaal Tinsley – Where to begin? The Pacers had traded away their No. 1 pick for the 2001 draft, but coach Isiah Thomas and Donnie Walsh wanted to trade into the draft to take a player from Iowa State with the 27th pick. Two things happened here: 1) The Pacers gave up a future first-round pick, which turned out to be the 21st pick in 2003, aka, the “Best Draft of the Decade.” That pick was used to take Boris Diaw; 2) Tinsley was chosen one pick ahead of Tony Parker and three spots ahead of Gilbert Arenas. The scouting team didn’t do their homework. Although Tinsley started strong by having a great rookie season, and followed by his best year during the “Year of the Brawl” in 04-05, it was injuries, off-the-court issues, etc.,that derailed his career so much that the Pacers banned him from the team and now they can’t get rid of him. This should be the worst pick in team history, but…

    1. Jonathan Bender – In 1999, the Pacers traded sixth man Antonio Davis, who wanted a starting spot, to Toronto for the No. 5 overall pick of the draft, Jonathan Bender. The loss of Davis ultimately cost them in the short-term and long-term as the loss of another strong big man left the Pacers depleted in trying to stop Shaq in the Finals. The acquisition of Bender turned out to be a wasted roster spot as he might as well shown up to games in a full-body cast. The oft-injured prodigy eventually retired after seven seasons of unlived hype. It doesn’t help that Bender was the only player chosen in the top 10 in 1999 to not become successful.

    Out of the 30 NBA teams, the Pacers probably sit in the middle of the road when it comes to drafting hits and misses. The team has worse luck than the Lakers, but they seem like Lady Luck herself compared to the Clippers. Hopefully, the 13th pick of the 2009 draft is more like Danny Granger, and less like David Harrison, because I heard High Times raised its subscription rates.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-11525-Indi...-Pacers-drafts

  • #2
    Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

    The sad thing is that the misses since 1994 pale in comparison to the disasters of the 70s and 80s drafts, as we could have had Bernard King, Michael Jordan and Larry Bird...not to mention with a little luck, Patrick Ewing. Throw in that we actually had Alex English and Adrian Dantley at one time, and it can really make a Pacer fan cry.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

      Post more, dude. Welcome.
      "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

        Tinsley was not a terrible draft pick. It is not his fault he signed a long and large contract. If a player gets only their initial rookie contract that qualifies as a bust in my book. David Harrison was picked 30th, How many 30th picks in the last 15 years have got another contract after their rookie deal?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

          Originally posted by kellogg
          The sad thing is that the misses since 1994 pale in comparison to the disasters of the 70s and 80s drafts,
          And then there's 1993:




          But apart from picking on Haskin, which is part of my job, I think the OP helps us recognize that the draft is guesswork. The Pacers seem to have done a bit worse than they could have, but not much worse. It isn't reasonable to expect them to always guess which players are going to exceed expectation.
          Last edited by Putnam; 06-15-2009, 11:05 AM.
          And I won't be here to see the day
          It all dries up and blows away
          I'd hang around just to see
          But they never had much use for me
          In Levelland. (James McMurtry)

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

            How did we have a shot at Jordan and Bird?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

              Originally posted by Pacers View Post
              How did we have a shot at Jordan and Bird?
              The year Bird was drafted (as an eligible Junior), we had the third pick and took Rick Robey, while Boston took Bird 6th (and he played his senior year at ISU).

              The year Jordan was drafted third, Portland took Sam Bowie with the second pick. Portland had received that pick from us in exchange for journeyman center Tom Owens a couple years earlier.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                Originally posted by Pacers View Post
                How did we have a shot at Jordan and Bird?
                We could have drafted Bird the year before and didn't. We traded away the pick that was used on the Kentucky guy that was drafted before Jordan.
                "He wanted to get to that money time. Time when the hardware was on the table. That's when Roger was going to show up. So all we needed to do was stay close"
                Darnell Hillman (Speaking of former teammate Roger Brown)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                  As I recall, there's a story somewhere of Bird and Slick sharing a beer (or several) heading into that draft, with Slick basically saying, 'We want to pick you, but if you're going back to school we can't afford to wait on you.'

                  The Celtics were more than happy to wait. Damn finances.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                    Originally posted by aceace View Post
                    We could have drafted Bird the year before and didn't. We traded away the pick that was used on the Kentucky guy that was drafted before Jordan.
                    Actually had two shots at drafting Bird: We had the first pick in the draft that year and traded it to Portland for Johnny Davis and their 3rd pick...yet STILL went ahead and drafted Rick Robey from KY, while Red Auerbach picked Larry at (I think) 6 and waited a year.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                      Ah ok. Thanks, fellas.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                        This thread gives me great pain.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                          David Harrison was the final pick of the first round. Hard to call that a failure or bad pick. As for your other bad picks, clearly Shawne Williams was a huge mistake. Brezec was the 27th pick when we had no idea who our next coach was going to be and how many players would return or defect. If Jackson and Smits come back, we had the luxury to bring Brezec along slowly. Didn't happen, of course. But I'm not sure anybody at #27 in that draft would have been better. Maybe Michael Redd, but that would be an odd draft pick for a team that still had Reggie, Mark Jackson, and Jalen.
                          Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
                          Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
                          Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
                          Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
                          And life itself, rushing over me
                          Life itself, the wind in black elms,
                          Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                            just so you know with the dampier thing, yes technically kobe was available however, he really wasn't. the lakers never drafted him. the Charlotte hornets did. and he was never going to play for them either and he made that clear to them. they traded him to la because they had to.
                            and as for the bird situation, back then not only could you draft a guy a while he still was playing college ball, there was no salary structure for rookies and the pacers could not afford him so they passed. it was probably for the best for larry as he would have likely wasted his time here. the team was so bad not even he could have made the team a championship contender by himself.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Look back at Pacers Trades

                              I remember being at the 1994 draft that year (when we drafted Piatkowski), which was also held at the RCA Dome, and hearing his name called and everyone booing. I was sitting near some Pacers executives and you could tell they weren't too thrilled with the boos, haha.

                              Ironically enough, that was also the year that we drafted Damon Bailey in the 2nd round. The jeers quickly turned to cheers the minute that pick was announced.

                              As far as the Bird pick, you have to remember this was the Pacers team of the late 70's that was losing money hand over fist. In hindsight, Bird would have been the pick, but the Pacers were a struggling NBA franchise and simply couldn't afford to wait.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X