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

Josh Smith Availability

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

  • #91
    Re: Josh Smith Availability

    Originally posted by beast23 View Post
    I actually "get" some of what you are saying. You are probably saying that PF is the deepest position on the team because we have two players that are capable of playing the position with the level not signicantly dropping off no matter which player is on the floor. Unfortunately, I think what you are overlooking is that neither player in conjunction with Hibbert is capable of providing good/adequate frontcourt defense.

    You seem to think that adding Smith would be the only move the Pacers intended to make. Either that or you believe that after adding Smith, the Pacers would not have enough cap space left over to add other quality players to the roster. Both assumptions would be wrong.

    As an example, if we were to remove the salary of all expiring contracts from the roster, then re-sign McRoberts for 3.5M, sign a first-round draft choice for 1.5M, then add Smith's and Igoudala's salaries to the roster, the total salary expenditure would be 66.4M. And, that does not account for the total salary being reduced by the salaries of the players that would have to be traded to acquire the two players.

    What I'm saying is that it is possible to significantly improve the roster by adding as many as two quality players with higher salaries without breaking the bank. Any assumptions otherwise are just wrong.
    I don't see what you see because there will be too many players coming up for their second contracts in a few short years and there will be no money to sign all of them. This team needs to avoid the situation where Donnie had to let Brad Miller go because he had to resign Bender, Foster, and Reggie. So Smith, Igoudala, Granger will just break the bank.
    Last edited by speakout4; 04-02-2011, 09:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Re: Josh Smith Availability

      Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
      I don't see what you see because there will be too many players coming up for their second contracts in a few short years and there will be no money to sign all of them. This team needs to avoid the situation where Donnie had to let Brad Miller go because he had to resign Bender, Foster, and Reggie. So Smith, Igoudala, Granger will just break the bank.
      Two years out, you are correct. After next season, Posey's contract is gone, but the total team salary is still high. My point was to show that getting two quality players was possible.

      As the end of next season approaches, I think the Pacers will have some difficult choices to make, regardless of what the total salary is and how many players we might bring in this summer. But, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing... it will be time to either fish or cut bait with several of our players. Price, Collison, Hibbert, Hansbrough, George, Rush and possibly a re-signed McRoberts. Some of these players would be traded to bring in better players this summer. And others might be traded in the summer of 2012. Or possibly one of these players improves so much that the players we acquire this summer will be traded at the trade deadline next year or in the summer of 2012.

      Look, it is totally possible to not sign anyone this summer and merely let the cap space be eaten up by increasing salaries and the cost of re-signing players in the summer of 2012. If it is only salary that we are concerned with, then signing maybe one player this summer and then taking the conservative approach of not doing anything else is the safe way to go. But this tact falls significantly short in doing much to improve the team's success in the W-L column.

      The point is, add to the talent this summer and do NOT wait/hope that the present youngsters will all achieve their perceived upside. Use most of the cap space this summer to acquire top notch talent and then be prepared to make the trades that are necessary to maintain a decent salary level the following summer (2012). We will still have desirable assets at that time... for example Smith would be on the last year of his contract and at least some of the remaining youngsters will be coveted players.

      I feel confident that the Pacers will acquire at least one decent talent this summer. An important point is to surround that player with as much talent as possible in hopes that the player will want to stay in Indianapolis.

      Comment


      • #93
        Re: Josh Smith Availability

        Originally posted by beast23 View Post
        I actually "get" some of what you are saying. You are probably saying that PF is the deepest position on the team because we have two players that are capable of playing the position with the level not signicantly dropping off no matter which player is on the floor. Unfortunately, I think what you are overlooking is that neither player in conjunction with Hibbert is capable of providing good/adequate frontcourt defense.

        You seem to think that adding Smith would be the only move the Pacers intended to make. Either that or you believe that after adding Smith, the Pacers would not have enough cap space left over to add other quality players to the roster. Both assumptions would be wrong.

        As an example, if we were to remove the salary of all expiring contracts from the roster, then re-sign McRoberts for 3.5M, sign a first-round draft choice for 1.5M, then add Smith's and Igoudala's salaries to the roster, the total salary expenditure would be 66.4M. And, that does not account for the total salary being reduced by the salaries of the players that would have to be traded to acquire the two players.

        What I'm saying is that it is possible to significantly improve the roster by adding as many as two quality players with higher salaries without breaking the bank. Any assumptions otherwise are just wrong.
        Wait just a minute! You are assuming the CBA will not change. In all likely hood the salary cap will drop significantly. If it does not - then there can be an honest debate. But adding Smith would put a lot of money into the 4 and I just think that is fundamentally wrong. The 4 spot should not be taking up a huge chunk of the cap on a winning team unless it is an elite player. Smith is a decent player but nowhere near elite. A winning team always has a good pg (unless they have superstars like Jordan, Pippen or Kobe, Gasol). I am not convinced Hibbert will ever be a quality defensive Center. Smith looks good on defense now because Horford can cover some of his mistakes - Hibbert cannot. And would probably make him look worse than he is (like he does our PF's now).
        Again, I am not against upgrading any position. I would start with the more significant ones first instead of sinking a ton of money into a postion that is really decent and could be a lot better next year.

        Add Iggy and a quality pg and this team would be primed for a long run!
        Last edited by troyc11a; 04-02-2011, 10:42 PM.

        Comment


        • #94
          Re: Josh Smith Availability

          Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
          Add Iggy and a quality pg and this team would be primed for a long run!
          You add Iggy and a quality PG then this team will have a very strong resemblance to a donut... very tasty on the outside with a large hole in the center. And that's because you have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to improve the post defense.

          I'm not going to argue whether or not Smith is an elite player... I hate the use of the word elite because it is so ambiguous.

          How I will respond is simply by this. I don't think you have an appreciation at all that the game of basketball is played on two ends of the floor. At any rate, ignoring Smith's talents on the defensive end of the court seems to support my view.

          If you do have an appreciation of the defensive aspects of the game, then you would certainly be forced to admit that the Pacers defense in and around the post is at best "lacking". And if you have that appreciation, can you name me more than 2-3 PFs that play better all-around defense, either in the post or even away from the basket, than Josh Smith? Of course, if you don't have that appreciation, then our discussion is moot.

          Comment


          • #95
            Re: Josh Smith Availability

            Originally posted by beast23 View Post
            You add Iggy and a quality PG then this team will have a very strong resemblance to a donut... very tasty on the outside with a large hole in the center. And that's because you have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to improve the post defense.

            I'm not going to argue whether or not Smith is an elite player... I hate the use of the word elite because it is so ambiguous.

            How I will respond is simply by this. I don't think you have an appreciation at all that the game of basketball is played on two ends of the floor. At any rate, ignoring Smith's talents on the defensive end of the court seems to support my view.

            If you do have an appreciation of the defensive aspects of the game, then you would certainly be forced to admit that the Pacers defense in and around the post is at best "lacking". And if you have that appreciation, can you name me more than 2-3 PFs that play better all-around defense, either in the post or even away from the basket, than Josh Smith? Of course, if you don't have that appreciation, then our discussion is moot.
            Hey the Pacers "D" sucks. Smith is a quality defensive PF but anyone would look better playing next to Horford who is the real stud on that team. What I am saying is Hibbert is terrible on the defensive end and Smith will not look so good next to him. I dont think he would lift Hibberts game - I think Hibbert would hinder his. So really, adding Smith would not help our team as much as Iggy and a pg who can "D". Iggy is a great defensive player.
            Our PF position is not bad. Neither is our SF. The other 3 positions are almost to horrible to watch. And I dont see any of them getting better anytime soon.
            If you want to talk about trading for Horford, I am all in on that one. Maybe Varajeo or another Defensive stopper at the 5.

            Comment


            • #96
              Re: Josh Smith Availability

              Smith is a great help defender and protects the basket with just his presence.... Would be a huge upgrade

              Comment


              • #97
                Re: Josh Smith Availability

                In my opinion if it isn't a can't miss opportunity I would rather sit on what we have as far as starters go. When I say can't miss I mean the player is better now and will be better than the player he is replacing 4 or 5 years from now.

                The bench is a different story. I like what we have, but outside of one maybe two players a bench player isn't something you look at as a long term core player (of course with the exception of players still in their rookie contract).

                Comment


                • #98
                  Re: Josh Smith Availability

                  Smith is a great defender because he plays next to Horford? Look, Horford is a very good defender and he will help any PF defend better, but there is one thing you need to understand. Josh Smith was acknowledged as a great defender in each of the three years before Horford was ever in the league.

                  So Smith was already a great defender, without Horford. So who is to say that it is not Horford that is benefitting from Smith's strong defensive abilities? In reality, I believe both sides of the statement are true... both players seem to compliment each other very well.

                  I would agree with one thing you have stated. Our PF position is not that bad... on the offensive end of the floor only. It is very inconsistent on the defensive end of the floor.

                  Josh Smith is every bit the defender at the PF position that Igoudala is at SG. I like Igoudala because he is such a tenacious defender and is also able to guard some PGs and quite a few SFs. Smith is also a tenacious defender and is also able to guard quite a few SFs as well as covering PFs / shorter centers that are playing center. Both of these players are about as good as it gets on the defensive end of the floor.

                  If we had Danny in foul trouble or injured, no problem. Shift Smith to SF and insert Hansbrough. Or, shift Igoudala to SF and insert George. Either works, depending on the matchup and the offense that might be required against the particular opponent.

                  As far as some of our youngsters getting better at defense, I see our perimeter defense improving through George as much more likely than our interior defense improving through Hansbrough or McRoberts. I fully expect George to have a "breakout season" next year on the defensive end of the court. I think he is that close. He has a few problems with ticky-tack fouls and decision-making, but I think many of his problems will be corrected with a few more months of experience and a little more respect from the officials that he will surely get beyond his rookie year.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Re: Josh Smith Availability

                    I don't know but does anybody here really think that a team with DC,PG,Danny,JS and Roy is better than Hinrich,JJ,Marvin,JS and Horford? Like I said before, we need to improve the PG and SG position if we really want to make some noise, I don't see PF,C or SF as top priority.
                    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                    Comment


                    • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                      I don't know but does anybody here really think that a team with DC,PG,Danny,JS and Roy is better than Hinrich,JJ,Marvin,JS and Horford? Like I said before, we need to improve the PG and SG position if we really want to make some noise, I don't see PF,C or SF as top priority.
                      This is what I have been trying to say. I still cannot understand why so many on this board want to improve the best position on the team first. This makes no sense whatsoever. Even if I agree (and I dont) that Smith is an elite PF, then adding him to our team still only puts us vying for the 8th seed and we just sunk millions into our best position.
                      Like you said. ATL's lineup is waaaaaaaay better than ours. If Smith was so good then why would he be available? The answer: the grass always looks better on the other side. Keep Smith and ad a pg/sg/c that can defend and we have a real team here.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                        Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                        I don't see what you see because there will be too many players coming up for their second contracts in a few short years and there will be no money to sign all of them. This team needs to avoid the situation where Donnie had to let Brad Miller go because he had to resign Bender, Foster, and Reggie. So Smith, Igoudala, Granger will just break the bank.
                        Soooo we're just supposed to sit still and do nothing to improve the team and stay pat as a .500 team next year (hopefully)?

                        Terrible reasoning, and plan.

                        When you're closer to 10 games under .500 than being .500 you don't stand pat unless you've got a Kobe, Wade, or Lebron in their rookie years who will single handedly drag you out of the .500 muck just by improving. Do we have that guy? Doubt it.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                          Originally posted by xBulletproof View Post
                          Soooo we're just supposed to sit still and do nothing to improve the team and stay pat as a .500 team next year (hopefully)?

                          Terrible reasoning, and plan.

                          When you're closer to 10 games under .500 than being .500 you don't stand pat unless you've got a Kobe, Wade, or Lebron in their rookie years who will single handedly drag you out of the .500 muck just by improving. Do we have that guy? Doubt it.
                          I'm not saying standing pat but you make sure that the guys you have been grooming are not going somewhere else. You always seem to have have some editorial comment about other people's lacking the intelligence you attribute to yourself. .

                          Comment


                          • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                            If only there was a way to get both Josh Smith and Iggy...

                            Comment


                            • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                              Originally posted by troyc11a View Post
                              This is what I have been trying to say. I still cannot understand why so many on this board want to improve the best position on the team first. This makes no sense whatsoever. Even if I agree (and I dont) that Smith is an elite PF, then adding him to our team still only puts us vying for the 8th seed and we just sunk millions into our best position.
                              Like you said. ATL's lineup is waaaaaaaay better than ours. If Smith was so good then why would he be available? The answer: the grass always looks better on the other side. Keep Smith and ad a pg/sg/c that can defend and we have a real team here.
                              PF is not our best position, and Josh Smith is light years ahead of Tyler.

                              Smith could be available because they have near 70 million dollars tied up in just 7 players. They still need 8 more signings and are looking at spending way, way too much money for a team that's as bad off as we are financially I'd guess. It's not because he sucks or for any other reason.

                              Besides that you keep acting like this one thing is the only thing we'll ever do. We're far from being a contender and to get there it's going to take a series of moves. Nobody is going to just hand us Wade/Lebron/Kobe to help us out. Adding a guy who commands respect in the paint on defense, is an All NBA defender and can score, handle the ball and pass well is one hell of a step in that direction. No single move we make is going to make us contenders, I don't care what position it's at.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Josh Smith Availability

                                Originally posted by speakout4 View Post
                                I'm not saying standing pat but you make sure that the guys you have been grooming are not going somewhere else. You always seem to have have some editorial comment about other people's lacking the intelligence you attribute to yourself. .
                                Well if we're not standing pat, then we can trade the one's we don't plan on signing before that day comes, yes? Not seeing the problem.

                                As for editorial comment deal, it's my opinion, so of course I'm going to think it's right. It's mine. Just as anyone else thinks their own is correct, and mine is wrong. If you'd rather not hear someone defend their own stance on something, you probably shouldn't be on the internet. Or talk to people. Or watch TV.

                                I've seen you make a couple snide comments about me over the last year, and I've ignored them for the most part. Don't know what to tell you man, you seem to take me a bit too personal. Ignore function works well.
                                Last edited by xBulletproof; 04-03-2011, 12:04 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X