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

All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

    Oh Lance....

    It’s interesting: Coaches want everyone to make instant decisions when you get the ball. You like to hold it a bit sometimes, pull out some crossovers, and go to work. The offense kind of stops, but you can get to the rim that way. Is it tough to find the right balance?

    I just do whatever the defense gives me. If the defense gives me a drive, I try to create my own shot. If the defense collapses on me, I try to find the open man. It’s all just my instincts.
    He's that guy who you'll say "watch out for that bare wire, it will shock you" and his response is "This one?" and grabs it.
    Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

    Comment


    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

      Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
      Very nice post. Very well put. Thanks for responding.

      I agree with you on a lot of your points. I don't see Lance as a one dimensional scorer ala Jamal Crawford and JR Smith, I just used them as they both are talented players who after years of falling out of favor as starters settled on careers as 6th man offensive sparks. Notice I said spark, not scorer - because like you - I think Lance is at his best as a facilitator. The issue with Lance IMO is that his effectiveness on the game wanes without the ball in his hands. However Lance has seen his most success when leading a second unit (against mostly bench players) where he can dominate the ball and overpower weaker opponents.

      I do think you kind of contradicted yourself a bit when you said Lance can be a 2nd option. I don't think Lance is a good enough scorer to be a consistent second option on a team offensively. I do think he would be a great third bannana offensively who can do a little bit of everything for a team, whether as a starter, or as a super sub off the bench.

      With all of that said, I totally disagree about his talent level touching Gilbert Arenas. When Gil was healthy, he was a top 10-15 player in this league. I can see the unpredictability factor, but I don't think Gil's upward projection was much of a surprise. He was a good scorer in college, and avg 18 and 5 before he left to Wash. Maybe nobody expected him to blow up to superstardom, but he demonstrated in GS that he could put the ball in the hole at the age of 21.

      Funny thing, Lance's numbers are very similar to my all time favorite player - Jason Kidd. He's not the player J-Kidd was by any means, but I'm normally a BIG fan of versatile players who are fun to watch. With that said, Lance is certainly his own show, there's no if's and's or but's about that.
      When we're talking about guards, most of them become less effective with the ball out of their hands. One of the strengths inherent to being a guard is ballhandling. Unless we're talking about guards with special roles, like a shooter or a lockdown defender, guards want the ball in their hands, in general. It's not like with big men where they don't have to take a shot to have an impact on the game through rim protection and rebounds. But I think Lance is getting better at finding ways to have a positive impact despite struggling with his shot. His shooting is the biggest issue I've seen in the first five games. It's not that he's not getting his touches. His usage rate is around where it was with the Pacers last year. Al and Kemba's usage so far is on par with PG's and West's from last year, so I disagree that he needs to adapt to having the ball less, because he doesn't have the ball less. What's different is where he's getting the ball, what he's doing with it (pressing) and how he's unloading it (in more pick situations than motion). He's still learning his fit in the system and building a comfort level with his teammates to where he knows where they want the ball.

      I don't think Lance is the ideal second option either. But I think in Charlotte he and Kemba alternate as the second option depending on the situation or who's having the better game. It might be more by necessity than consistency, but on any given night, he can be the second option for Charlotte.

      Gil was an assassin, but he wasn't at that level before DC, much less a proven scorer. In GS, he was the second option on a sub-.500 team, not to mention the worst defensive team in the NBA. Lance in Indy was the third option (at best) on a contending team with not only the best defense in the NBA at the time, but historically great. I don't think it's a talent discrepancy between the two as much as team identity and team talent level. Lance would have no problem putting up 4 more points per game on 3 more shots per game if his team needed him to be a second option and basically disregard defense completely. I'd bet he'd rack up an extra assist or two with the ball in his hands as much as Gil in GS, as well. But Lance is a different mold. He's more likely to dunk on your head or acrobatically lay it in after turning a couple defenders into practice cones than walk ruthlessly into a 40-ft bomb and turn around with his arms raised before it goes in a la Gil in his Agent Zero heyday.
      2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

      Comment


      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

        #SelfishDudes

        Comment


        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

          Originally posted by Kuq_e_Zi91 View Post
          When we're talking about guards, most of them become less effective with the ball out of their hands. One of the strengths inherent to being a guard is ballhandling. Unless we're talking about guards with special roles, like a shooter or a lockdown defender, guards want the ball in their hands, in general. It's not like with big men where they don't have to take a shot to have an impact on the game through rim protection and rebounds. But I think Lance is getting better at finding ways to have a positive impact despite struggling with his shot. His shooting is the biggest issue I've seen in the first five games. It's not that he's not getting his touches. His usage rate is around where it was with the Pacers last year. Al and Kemba's usage so far is on par with PG's and West's from last year, so I disagree that he needs to adapt to having the ball less, because he doesn't have the ball less. What's different is where he's getting the ball, what he's doing with it (pressing) and how he's unloading it (in more pick situations than motion). He's still learning his fit in the system and building a comfort level with his teammates to where he knows where they want the ball.

          I don't think Lance is the ideal second option either. But I think in Charlotte he and Kemba alternate as the second option depending on the situation or who's having the better game. It might be more by necessity than consistency, but on any given night, he can be the second option for Charlotte.

          Gil was an assassin, but he wasn't at that level before DC, much less a proven scorer. In GS, he was the second option on a sub-.500 team, not to mention the worst defensive team in the NBA. Lance in Indy was the third option (at best) on a contending team with not only the best defense in the NBA at the time, but historically great. I don't think it's a talent discrepancy between the two as much as team identity and team talent level. Lance would have no problem putting up 4 more points per game on 3 more shots per game if his team needed him to be a second option and basically disregard defense completely. I'd bet he'd rack up an extra assist or two with the ball in his hands as much as Gil in GS, as well. But Lance is a different mold. He's more likely to dunk on your head or acrobatically lay it in after turning a couple defenders into practice cones than walk ruthlessly into a 40-ft bomb and turn around with his arms raised before it goes in a la Gil in his Agent Zero heyday.
          You're right about guards. But there are plenty of backcourts in the league (Wall/Beal, Curry/Thompson, Lillard/Matthews,) where two guys have comparably high usage rates ( I know it's a stat that's frowned upon, but I find it useful when figuring out who has the ball) but are just as effective with, and without the ball. So IMO Lance should be able to find other ways to be effective outside of ISO situations. I think he and Kemba are so similar that he's still figuring out where to go/be and when to go/be there. When you've got Big Al in the paint looking for touches, the court shrinks. This is why I think Lance would be effective with their second unit where Brian Roberts is spotting up as a shooter (ala CJ Watson) while Lance ISO's. At least for the time being.

          We'll agree to disagree about the talent level between Gil and Lance, but I think a big part of it is because their talents were so different. Gil's greatest strength was his ability to shoot/score at a high level consistently whereas Lance's greatest strength is his ability to be a facilitator, rebounder, and efficient scoring option. I guess the difference to me is that I'd personally place a higher premium on guys that can score at an elite level (especially in the clutch) when compared to a jack of all trades type of player.

          Comment


          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

            Originally posted by Ace E.Anderson View Post
            You're right about guards. But there are plenty of backcourts in the league (Wall/Beal, Curry/Thompson, Lillard/Matthews,) where two guys have comparably high usage rates ( I know it's a stat that's frowned upon, but I find it useful when figuring out who has the ball) but are just as effective with, and without the ball. So IMO Lance should be able to find other ways to be effective outside of ISO situations. I think he and Kemba are so similar that he's still figuring out where to go/be and when to go/be there. When you've got Big Al in the paint looking for touches, the court shrinks. This is why I think Lance would be effective with their second unit where Brian Roberts is spotting up as a shooter (ala CJ Watson) while Lance ISO's. At least for the time being.

            We'll agree to disagree about the talent level between Gil and Lance, but I think a big part of it is because their talents were so different. Gil's greatest strength was his ability to shoot/score at a high level consistently whereas Lance's greatest strength is his ability to be a facilitator, rebounder, and efficient scoring option. I guess the difference to me is that I'd personally place a higher premium on guys that can score at an elite level (especially in the clutch) when compared to a jack of all trades type of player.
            I like usage rate for the same reasons so don't worry about it. I agree with your observations about Charlotte's offense and spacing. I think that's why Clifford runs so many pick situations with Al, to bring him out of the paint and open the floor for Kemba/Lance. I think where we disagree is where we see Lance being effective. To me, he's still effective when he's rebounding at a high rate, swinging the ball to the open man and creating for others. His shooting is really dragging the rest of his game down right now, in addition to piling on to the pressure of proving he's worth the contract.

            Clifford's been experimenting with Lance at the 3 and Neal and Roberts at the guards. If you put the ball in his hands, run picks off Zeller and put both of the guards on the flanks, Lance can wreak havoc. I still think they need more shooting off the bench though. I wouldn't be surprised to see them move Henderson at the deadline.

            I'd put a higher premium on those players too. That's why I'd take Melo over PG, and that's why I'd take Agent Zero over present-day Lance 10 times out of 10. But Gil wasn't Agent Zero until his second year in DC. Not to say Lance can be what Gil was as a scorer, but as far as impact on a game -- that "points responsible for" stat, defending the other team's star wing/guard, and rebounding at a high rate -- I wouldn't doubt Lance's talent level just yet. The talents may be different, but the impact on a game could still be similar. He may not reach Gil-like superstardom, but if he makes multiple All-Star games, I don't think people would be all that surprised either.
            2015, 2016, 2019 IKL Fantasy Basketball Champions - DC Dreamers

            Comment


            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

              Zach Lowe: You gotta admit you take rebounds from teammates sometimes. Does that annoy teammates?

              Lance: That means I’m hustling more than them. If I’m taking your rebound, you gotta hustle more.

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

              Comment


              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                So nobody has said anything to him about being too fancy or about bad body language?? Right

                Also, in the beginning of the article, he pretty much states that when the initial contract was offered he knew he would not be coming back. Also, he did not talk to any of his teammates during the process.

                To me, that says unless he was getting a 12 million he was leaving. He was sure that he could get that somewhere else. He was probably sweating bullets until Charlotte bailed him out with a contract a half mil more than the Pacers.

                Comment


                • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                  You talk in the song a lot about “bottles,” and the video is basically guys partying. You’re young, with lots of money now. Is it hard to balance work and fun? Do you have rules during the season — like you can’t stay out past a certain hour the day before a game?

                  I have a lot of fun, but I don’t even drink.

                  Not at all?

                  No. I just said all that in the song to be cool, and to relate the environment I’m in a lot now. I don’t drink or smoke — none of that.

                  Not even in the offseason?

                  No. Not at all. I just like to party and have fun with my friends, and just be out a lot. That’s why I said that in my song.
                  http://grantland.com/the-triangle/qa...d-video-bombs/
                  "Look, it's up to me to put a team around ... Lance right now." —Kevin Pritchard press conference

                  Comment


                  • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                    Gonna go ahead and call ******** on Lance here.

                    Comment


                    • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                      I think the best part of the Q & A (and the reason I love Lance) is this:

                      Does it count as a no-look pass if I look at my target, throw the ball to him, and only then look away as I’m throwing it? I think that’s a fake no-look pass.
                      Oh yeah, that counts. That’s a no-look. Definitely.

                      I don’t know.
                      If it fools the defense, it counts as a no-look.
                      Infuriatingly, ridiculous, entertaining, and endearing all simultaneously.
                      You Got The Tony!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                        I would pay $500 to read a book of anecdotes jointly written by Ron Artest and Lance Stephenson. By the end of Lance's career, that would be the ultimate reading experience.

                        Comment


                        • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                          I'm going to guess that we will continue to see this "give and take" in regards to Lance Supporters and Detractors........but I think it's fair to say that what we see of how Lance fits into the Hornets offense/defense is a "work in progress" and can't be adequately judged for another couple of months of familiarity between Kemba/Lance/AlJeff and what Clifford will mesh the 3 of them together.
                          Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                          Comment


                          • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                            Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                            I'm going to guess that we will continue to see this "give and take" in regards to Lance Supporters and Detractors........but I think it's fair to say that what we see of how Lance fits into the Hornets offense/defense is a "work in progress" and can't be adequately judged for another couple of months of familiarity between Kemba/Lance/AlJeff and what Clifford will mesh the 3 of them together.
                            It'll take awhile. All of us know that--supporters and detractors alike.

                            Comment


                            • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                              Originally posted by cdash View Post
                              It'll take awhile. All of us know that--supporters and detractors alike.
                              I actually think Lance and Kemba are a terrible combination which is part of Lance's problem fitting in.

                              Comment


                              • Re: All things Lance Stephenson thread for the next year or so

                                Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                                I actually think Lance and Kemba are a terrible combination which is part of Lance's problem fitting in.
                                Yeah I do too. I mean, let's be honest, that's why Charlotte went after Gordon Hayward first: He's just a better fit. I think they will work it out. It will take some time but I think it would be a lot worse had Kemba not gotten his extension and he was playing for a contract.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X