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

Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

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

  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

    Originally posted by Mad-Mad-Mario View Post
    If you are still friends off the court, that friendship should be strong enough from completely destroying team chemistry for a season. A hiccup game here or there where you are fighting sure. But if you are still friends off the court you should be able to get your **** together and player like you like each other.
    Off the court friendship and chemistry doesn't always translate to on-court chemistry.

    Comment


    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

      Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
      Just on money terms it is questionable for Lance. 5 years 44m. vs 3 years at 27 million. Assuming both are true. Just on the money which would you take? Is two years guaranteed worth $200,000 per year? Clearly no.

      1. so either lance was offended at our offer and decided he wasn't coming back.

      2. Or lance decided fir whatever reason he wanted to move on elsewhere,

      3. or he really just wanted a shorter deal because he thinks he can get a much bigger deal in three years.

      But if it is number three don't you think the pacers would have agreed to a shorter deal if lance told them that was what he wanted?


      obviously a 4th reason is he thinks he can be the main perimeter player there. And cannot ever be here with PG


      UB, I said last year, after being snubbed not being an Allstar, that Stephenson was playing for a new contract the way he started playing. You thanked my post. I just knew he'd go elsewhere, so I'm not surprised at all. Unlike so many on this board, I never expected Stephenson to be a Pacer next season. He took the 1st non-Pacer offer that came his way, and I'm sure he was sweating that teams weren't interested in him. I truly believe he and his agent expected teams to have lined up to sign him. With that not happening, I hope that was an eye opener for his future maturity.

      The quote from Herb's interview yesterday makes me wonder if he didn't already know Stephenson was going to sign with Charlotte. Stephenson can't ever say that Bird and the Pacers didn't give him plenty of opportunities to get where he is now. I feel for Bird due to how much he believed in Stephenson and mentored him only to have Stephenson jump ship.

      Comment


      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

        Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
        You would have thought that a thread about losing Lance would have been the most polarizing thread ever, but that obviously isn't the case here.
        Lance did it for basketball reasons, imo, not for money reasons.

        Some of you think that is really, really stupid, but for someone like me who doesn't think money is the most important thing in the world, I find it kind of refreshing. I think I would do just fine for the rest of my life if I had $18 million coming my way.

        What are the basketball reasons? I think a lot of this has to do with Vogel being a very strong defensive coach but not so strong on the offensive end, along with Vogel being somewhat hampered by his personnel (Hibbert struggling, Hill not a pg, PGeorge not quite efficient just yet).

        My hunch is that Lance was willing to continue in a slower offense (not his best match) with guys that either aren't good on the offensive side or not matched for their position, if he was on a team that was a defensive juggernaut that had championship potential. But it also looks to me that the Pacers defense has been somewhat figured out. The best teams give Roy a tear drop or they sent him out to the perimeter. A stretch five seems to put to bed our defensive brilliance. We're still good, but not great.

        Paul George's greatness is not as a brilliant offensive player. He can be very good, but his greatness is as a two way player. His greatness is now a bit deflated with Roy exposed as a weakness, now on BOTH sides of the floor.

        Anyway, all that to say, Lance put up with a lot of mediocre play on the offensive end (both of the centers couldn't catch a pass from him) in order to see the team win. He considered taking Indy's offer, or one slightly better, and still not being a flashy, "the man" kind of player. But, heck, that also can be quite fun to watch, and why not head to Charlotte where there is a chance of being on the rise, along with a pretty well respected coach. Maybe he'll know a little more about offense. (I'm bummed McRoberts left; I think he and Lance would have been a great duo. Not a fan of Marvin Williams.)

        So, when I say basketball reasons, I am including the idea that Lance will have a chance to play in a well coached offense and he personally will have a better chance to be a key part of that offense. Personally, I never thought he was used to his top capability in Indiana, and I thought the decisions of how PGeorge was never leashed and George Hill was allowed to bog things down really showed weaknesses in Vogel's ability to coach offense. So, for basketball reasons, on both sides of the floor, I can see Lance's motivation to move to Charlotte.

        It will be a risk—$40 million or whatever vs. $18 million—and joining a new playoff team with potential rather than an established ECF finals team. But Lance has always been about taking risks.

        P.S. So, Sollozzo, in response to your comment, I think the Lance fans such as myself are happy for Lance that he will have a chance to be all that he can be somewhere else. With the coach here and the contracts already signed, there just may never have been a real way to make it work long term in Indiana. Bird screwed up by offering Lance a four year rookie contract that did not allow for an extension. Lance would be locked up now for about $4million if he had.
        Last edited by McKeyFan; 07-16-2014, 10:04 AM.
        "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

        Comment


        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          WTF? Can't be mad at the front office or ownership for him taking a worse offer. The Pacers were guaranteeing him $26 more million for Christ's sake. So to get back at Bird, he shoots his bank account in the foot? I'm just glad it's not some situation where the Pacers got edges out by a slightly better deal.
          Craziness! But if Lance's ego is that big that he'd take less money just so he can be "the man" on a lesser team, so be it. All that means to me is the Pacers can develop SoHi (Soloman Hill), let GHill really take the reigns at the Point, move CJ Watson fully into the B/U-Point Guard role and keep things moving.

          Would loved to have had Lance back, but if that's his decision to sign w/the Bobcats, well...peace!
          Last edited by NuffSaid; 07-16-2014, 12:59 PM.

          Comment


          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

            Originally posted by BillS View Post
            We have got to be the only fan base in the world that takes all-star recognition away from our own players and makes excuses for why they were on the team even though everyone knew they sucked and didn't deserve it. :shakehead
            No Bill it's just meaningless to talk about All Star appearances in this case. If we keep Lance, we potentially have 3 All Stars. It's about overall talent level and how we stack up. Which now, is not good at all.

            Almost everyone here said they wanted Lance back if the offer was reasonable, and he wound up signing for less than we initially offered. So anyone saying this is a win is just out of touch. The offer he took was not a ridiculous amount of money, and if we didn't sign two bench players, we could of kept him.

            At the end of the day we have to play the better teams in the league at the end of the season in the playoffs, and guess what? They all have All Star players.

            Do you honestly have faith that Roy Hibbert, regardless of whether or not he makes the All Star team, is gonna show up in the big games for us? Because truth is, he has NEVER been a consistent force, when it mattered, other than 2 series against the Miami Heat with a weak front court, and they don't even really exist anymore.

            People here hate "hero" ball, well you better learn to like it cause Paul George is gonna be firing up 25-30 sho next year like Melo does, because he isn't gonna have much help.
            "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

            Comment


            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

              Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
              UB, I said last year, after being snubbed not being an Allstar, that Stephenson was playing for a new contract the way he started playing. You thanked my post. I just knew he'd go elsewhere, so I'm not surprised at all. Unlike so many on this board, I never expected Stephenson to be a Pacer next season. He took the 1st non-Pacer offer that came his way, and I'm sure he was sweating that teams weren't interested in him. I truly believe he and his agent expected teams to have lined up to sign him. With that not happening, I hope that was an eye opener for his future maturity.

              The quote from Herb's interview yesterday makes me wonder if he didn't already know Stephenson was going to sign with Charlotte. Stephenson can't ever say that Bird and the Pacers didn't give him plenty of opportunities to get where he is now. I feel for Bird due to how much he believed in Stephenson and mentored him only to have Stephenson jump ship.
              What are you talking about? The ESPN article said the Pacers were unwilling to change the length of the contract. Bird could have closed this deal but chose not too. You dont' let talent like Lance walk so you can have one more year of Luis Scola!

              UGH!!! Every time I say it just makes me more and more angry!
              You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

              Comment


              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                Well there goes any reason to watch the Pacer's next year. Larry Bird is an idiot, so over that guy...there is not really a decent contract on this entire team. Lance was my favorite player and this pisses me off, but I don't blame him. Dude will be an all star and is sure as hell worth what he has coming to him. I bet now that he realizes what his antics cost him financially he will reel that crap in and be even better. I expect D West to be worse this year, Scola will be worse, Miles is such a downgrade from Lance it's not even funny. Maybe if PG can learn to dribble and pass....i'm not holding my breath.
                *removed* Just keep politics and religion completely out of it, please.

                Comment


                • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                  Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                  Almost everyone here said they wanted Lance back if the offer was reasonable, and he wound up signing for less than we initially offered. So anyone saying this is a win is just out of touch. The offer he took was not a ridiculous amount of money, and if we didn't sign two bench players, we could of kept him.
                  I don't think anyone is saying it's a win that we lost him for nothing. That's always worst case scenario. What does signing the two bench guys have to do with it though? He took less guaranteed money, to play elsewhere. Had he wanted to stay, he would have signed our contract and we would have had to make moves to have him on the roster. If we weren't willing to do so, we wouldn't have offered him the contract in the first place IMO.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                    Pacers lost some talent here, which in general is rarely a good thing. However I do believe there are some current Pacers players relieved today, some of the core players. We'll see what if anything the pacers can do now to replace a starter, but I am not panickng.

                    Do we try to get a point guard and move Hill to the two. Or replace a shooting guard.


                    also an obvious question, anyone on the Hornets we might like to do a sign and trade?

                    IMO, Stephenson won't agree with a S&T. My guess he holds the Pacers accountable for a unfair offer, and in some way not getting more offers from other teams. What benefit is it for him to do it? This is all about Stephenson.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                      Help me out, were the Pacers not able to re-structure their deal to accommodate Lance in less years?

                      Do you amateur capologists believe that signing Miles prevented Bird fron re-structuring his original offer to accommodate Lance?

                      Did we REALLY want Lance back?

                      I would love to hear the answers to these questions.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                        Originally posted by Jon Theodore View Post
                        Well there goes any reason to watch the Pacer's next year. Larry Bird is an idiot, so over that guy...there is not really a decent contract on this entire team. Lance was my favorite player and this pisses me off, but I don't blame him. Dude will be an all star and is sure as hell worth what he has coming to him. I bet now that he realizes what his antics cost him financially he will reel that crap in and be even better. I expect D West to be worse this year, Scola will be worse, Miles is such a downgrade from Lance it's not even funny. Maybe if PG can learn to dribble and pass....i'm not holding my breath.
                        Lol. You do realize he took LESS money to play elsewhere right?

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                          Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
                          No Bill it's just meaningless to talk about All Star appearances in this case. If we keep Lance, we potentially have 3 All Stars. It's about overall talent level and how we stack up. Which now, is not good at all.

                          Almost everyone here said they wanted Lance back if the offer was reasonable, and he wound up signing for less than we initially offered. So anyone saying this is a win is just out of touch. The offer he took was not a ridiculous amount of money, and if we didn't sign two bench players, we could of kept him.

                          At the end of the day we have to play the better teams in the league at the end of the season in the playoffs, and guess what? They all have All Star players.

                          Do you honestly have faith that Roy Hibbert, regardless of whether or not he makes the All Star team, is gonna show up in the big games for us? Because truth is, he has NEVER been a consistent force, when it mattered, other than 2 series against the Miami Heat with a weak front court, and they don't even really exist anymore.

                          People here hate "hero" ball, well you better learn to like it cause Paul George is gonna be firing up 25-30 sho next year like Melo does, because he isn't gonna have much help.
                          Who is saying it's a definite win? The most I hear people saying is that there's some positives in it.

                          I have as much faith in Roy as I would that Lance wouldn't do something boneheaded. I also don't write off the entire first half of the year or Roy's All-Defensive team spot. Those aren't given to scrubs just out of kindness even if the All-Star nod was.

                          In fact, I give MUCH more weight to a reserve All-Star spot than I do to a starting spot. The latter is a popularity contest that sees guys on the starting roster who didn't even play most of the season. The second is coaches voting in players who did well.

                          I'll judge Roy by how he comes out and plays. He might not reach All-Star form again, and if not so be it. But to take away any recognition for where he WAS because he slumped is not something we do to any other player for any other team.
                          BillS

                          A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
                          Or throw in a first-round pick and flip it for a max-level point guard...

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                            Something still doesn't make sense about this. Why would the Pacers not be willing to sign Lance for a shorter period? This says that they didn't really want him back or he didn't really want to be back if he just signed the shorter deal without negotiating with the Pacers. The only reason the front office wouldn't want Lance back is because he is a much bigger disruption than was let on last season (i.e. the cause of the collapse). It will be interesting to see if the truth comes out now that he's gone.
                            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
                            - Benjamin Franklin

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                              Damn we had our Lebron/Wade

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lance Stephenson to sign with Charlotte- 3 years $27 million

                                Originally posted by Hypnotiq View Post

                                Good luck and good riddance

                                I'm more partial to the latter part.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X