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

Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

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

  • #31
    Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

    Originally posted by Sh4d3 View Post
    I'm kind of in this camp as well, though every time I watch a game, I still find myself pulling for a win.
    I know what you mean, but sometimes I can keep in my mind "this game is nothing compared to the ultimate goal".

    Comment


    • #32
      Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

      Good grief. I'm not accusing anyone of not being a "real fan".

      I used to look forward to giving other team's fans a little fun ribbing after a Pacers win. I've never done the "sore winner" bit. I've always hated that stuff.

      Never in my life have I imagined ever needing to "rub in" a Pacers win into the faces of other Pacers fans.

      This is all about a freaking #10 or so pick. Stupid is right.
      “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

      “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

      Comment


      • #33
        Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

        Originally posted by Mal View Post
        I want what I feel is best for the team, short-term and/or long-term. For now, a top-10 pick is definitely better for them so that is what I want.
        You don't (Bender) know (Tisdale) this for a fact.

        If they make a pick this year, go nowhere with it next year then next summer will be identical to where we are now.

        The people looking to give up the pick now are the ones trying not to prolong the suffering, not the people thinking tank. Sooner or later Atlanta is going to come calling when the protection doesn't save the pick anymore. As long as the pick remains protected it means the Pacers just had a lousy year.


        I know the contract/roster situation looks like a mess, but honestly a draft pick doesn't solve that very much. This team needs to rebuild it's image with the fanbase, and the image isn't "thug" it's "losers"...and that's a lot worse if you haven't noticed (go to a game, it's brutal even on nights when Tinsley isn't playing and Jackson is long gone).

        What's everyone's favorite game in the last few seasons, the one people always use as proof that they allegedly don't care how bad the team is as long as they play hard (yeah, right)? Post-brawl, no-chance underdogs vs ORL.

        This team is toast, therefore they are serious underdogs. No locals think they have a shot, so if they do win and get in, and then follow that up with at least a couple of playoff wins too, they will win a little credit with the fans for staying tough and continuing to fight.

        For all we know the first round opponent might lose their star player to injury after the first game and never recover, and that would really get the fans interested again.

        I'm not going to Vegas to bet their chances but I'll keep watching as long as they keep trying.


        An anecdote comes to mind, I think it was Ted Williams or Joe D that talked about busting their butt every day. When asked why they said "because somewhere in the stands are a couple of kids who came this one day to see me for the first and maybe their only time, I owe it to them to do my best and give them what they came for". Paraphrasing of course.

        Which one of you wants to be the guy who spent $60, even just $20 to come to a game only to have them walk out and announce "due to draft interests we forfeit and are going home, you won't be getting your money back, but just think about how good we might be in a few years from now and I'm sure you'll realize it was worth it to give up your ticket money tonight."

        For many fans the games that regulars don't want to go to is their big chance to get free tickets handed off to them and to see an NBA game in person for once. Maybe they get to go 2 times a year at most. They probably would like to see some real effort.

        Comment


        • #34
          Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

          Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post
          You don't (Bender) know (Tisdale) this for a fact.

          If they make a pick this year, go nowhere with it next year then next summer will be identical to where we are now.

          The people looking to give up the pick now are the ones trying not to prolong the suffering, not the people thinking tank. Sooner or later Atlanta is going to come calling when the protection doesn't save the pick anymore. As long as the pick remains protected it means the Pacers just had a lousy year.


          I know the contract/roster situation looks like a mess, but honestly a draft pick doesn't solve that very much. This team needs to rebuild it's image with the fanbase, and the image isn't "thug" it's "losers"...and that's a lot worse if you haven't noticed (go to a game, it's brutal even on nights when Tinsley isn't playing and Jackson is long gone).

          What's everyone's favorite game in the last few seasons, the one people always use as proof that they allegedly don't care how bad the team is as long as they play hard (yeah, right)? Post-brawl, no-chance underdogs vs ORL.

          This team is toast, therefore they are serious underdogs. No locals think they have a shot, so if they do win and get in, and then follow that up with at least a couple of playoff wins too, they will win a little credit with the fans for staying tough and continuing to fight.

          For all we know the first round opponent might lose their star player to injury after the first game and never recover, and that would really get the fans interested again.

          Wow... backing into the playoffs... then backing into the 2nd round due to the other's team misfortune... How thoroughly exciting that would be.

          Then blasted out of the 2nd round (where we didn't deserve to be in the first place) and watching TPTB decide they don't need to do nearly as much to 'fix' the team since they made it to the 2nd round and so deserve a training camp and time to come together. Plus, maybe the fans will warm to them... being a 2nd round team and all.

          No thanks... That is the true Death Valley scenario.

          -Bball
          Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

          ------

          "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

          -John Wooden

          Comment


          • #35
            Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

            I'm not going to bail on wanting a pick just because it could not work out. It's a lot better than what Bball is saying (and I agree with him).

            Comment


            • #36
              Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

              From the article by MM on the Pacers in the 80's
              ? 1983-84: Went 26-56, the worst record in the league. But it had traded its first-round pick three years earlier to Portland for 32-year-old journeyman center Tom Owens. Had it kept its No. 2 overall pick, the Pacers could have selected Michael Jordan or Charles Barkley.
              Now reflect on this one more time

              Draft right protection with Atlanta
              This year - top 10
              Year 2 - top 8
              Year 3 - top 5
              Year 4 - none

              That 80's team sure wishes they'd handed over their 1st round pick a lot sooner than they did.

              Even if this team goes down the drain they'll be certain to have their pick the next 3 years if they give it up this year. Otherwise a few years of really bad play could look identical to the 80's, including giving the Hawks the #2 overall pick when the next Jordan comes out in 4 years.

              You just don't know. I don't get the outrage over something that is totally unknown and as shown above could go much, much worse if the Pacers continue down the losing path and protect the pick for a few years while "loading up" on Stipo, Kellogg and Tisdale.

              Comment


              • #37
                Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                Originally posted by Bball View Post
                Wow... backing into the playoffs... then backing into the 2nd round due to the other's team misfortune... How thoroughly exciting that would be.

                Then blasted out of the 2nd round (where we didn't deserve to be in the first place) and watching TPTB decide they don't need to do nearly as much to 'fix' the team since they made it to the 2nd round and so deserve a training camp and time to come together. Plus, maybe the fans will warm to them... being a 2nd round team and all.

                No thanks... That is the true Death Valley scenario.

                -Bball
                Heaven forbid we go two rounds into the playoffs.

                "Oh Em Gee, If the Pacers start winning, the fans might like it! That's the last thing we want!"

                Do you think about what you write before you write it?

                *flame removed* There's no place for your attitude in sports.

                Furthermore, don't you think that winning could actually IMPROVE the chances of management to change the team - by - you know - raising the value of the current players?

                If you don't think that management has been both committed to change and active in that commitment, you've been living under a freaking rock.
                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                Comment


                • #38
                  Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                  Yeah, because a 2nd round playoff team is a bad thing. We need top 10 picks, not playoff wins.

                  See, then once we get those picks we can get better and....win some playoff games???

                  Wait a second, that's really a bad thing, right? So what do you want these picks for? Do they only stop tanking when it's about 90% certain that they will win it all? Who decides when they have a "legit" chance vs needing higher draft picks?

                  That ECF team of 03-04, should have just tanked all year, gone 20-62 and gotten another pick rather than WASTING OUR TIME by not winning it all. The Isiah team, should have just tanked all year instead of just the 2nd half.

                  The 91-92 Pacers lost in round 1. They had been a 500 team and stayed that way the following year even. This included bland 1st round losses to Boston and NY. Guess instead of a thrilling game 4 win in MSA you guys were pulling for more losses before then. Game 5 in Boston, bah, one of the low points in Pacers memory, most fans were hoping to move up in the draft 5 picks instead.

                  Don't get me started on how they just wasted the 93-95 seasons. Did they win it all? What happened in 96 (first round loss)? What happened in 97 (no playoffs)?

                  What Larry Brown should have done was tank to get higher picks instead. No title equals total failure.


                  BTW, the Pacers did have a first round pick after going out in the first round to NY 1-3. That pick - Scott Haskin. The result - ECF the next year, game 7 vs NY, the team that just walked over them the year before.

                  And your upset that this team might be giving up Scott Haskin for a first round loss? Oh no, they could have moved up and taken Bobby Hurley, Calbert Cheaney, Isiah Rider, or Shawn Bradley. Lindsey Hunter is probably the prize from picks 5-10.

                  Webber went 1. Penny went 3. Or since they went for a big how about Roy Rogers at 9. Vin Baker at 8 gives you a Harrington-esque frontline guy. Meanwhile even at 14 they could have drafted Sam Cassell.


                  Sorry, I enjoyed the 2 home games vs NY a lot more than I would have enjoyed Rogers instead of Haskin, or even Vin Baker over McKey (he sure as hell wouldn't play over Dale).

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                    Problem is you can committed and still make very bad decisions. If you want to limit you chances of fixing a team its by covering one mistake with another.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                      It's about standards. It seems to me guys like Naptown Seth and Los Angeles are content with just getting to the playoffs and a 1st round exit every year whereas me and BBall realize that this team needs more talent in the worst way.

                      The guys who are saying they'd never root for the Pacers to lose a game are rooting for them to lose something much bigger than any single game - they're rooting for them to lose their future. I'd also say the people rooting for the Pacers to make the playoffs instead of garnering a top-10 pick are selfish "fans" who are only interested in what they want. Everyone would rather see playoffs than no playoffs, but at this point in time losing out on a top-10 pick in a strong draft would do far more negative than a 1st round exit would do positive. The selfish "fans" don't realize this, they're too worried about whether they'll get the enjoyment of watching the playoffs this year.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                        Y2J - You're wrong. The future of the franchise does not depend on the 2007 #10 pick. The mere thought of that is laughable beyond belief.

                        Further, the draft is only one way to get acquire talent.
                        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                          Originally posted by Y2J
                          The selfish "fans" don't realize this, they're too worried about whether they'll get the enjoyment of watching the playoffs this year.
                          Wow. That's just laughable.

                          ...so wanting your team to make the playoffs is being a "selfish fan?" What a ridiculous concept.

                          It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.

                          Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
                          Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
                          NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                            A draft pick is only as good as you make it and so far the recent track record is poor. The trades have been poor and the solutions to the problems have been poor.

                            I think both of you guys have good arguments but it all hinges on 2 guys making good decisions which are few and far between here of late.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                              Originally posted by Kstat View Post
                              Wow. That's just laughable.

                              ...so wanting your team to make the playoffs is being a "selfish fan?" What a ridiculous concept.
                              Wanting to watch your team in the playoffs, knowing that they have 0 chance of advancing, at the expense of a top-10 pick is in fact extremely selfish. Stop worrying about what you want, and think about what the team needs.

                              We'd all like to watch our favorite team in the playoffs, but as I already pointed out, the negative (losing out on a top-10 pick) far outweighs the positive (letting the young guys experience the playoffs....by being slaughtered in 4 games). The selfish fans don't realize this because they're too caught up in what they want as opposed to what the team needs.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Re: Is anyone still thinking "tank?"

                                Let's put it this way: we had to get rid of Ron. we got Peja, whose deal was expiring. Peja could have just walked, but by a crazy miracle we got a HUGE trade exception, which we used to low-ball Harrington. Pay attention, because this is where your precious pick comes in. All it costs us is a pick to get the best FA left available last summer.

                                Next thing you know, Rio happens and we're back in "dump territory", only this time it's Jackson. That's right, they are trying to trade a guy who could go to prison. It's probably easier to trade a guy scheduled for knee surgery.

                                But wait - another miracle happens - we get rid of our primary problem (Jackson), plus an aging PG, Harrington and Powell. Harrington was being used often as a center with miserable results. So we upgrade our bench big man, Powell for Diogu. We also upgrade our Center, we upgrade our backup PG, get a roughly even swap (talent wise) at SG but more importantly get rid of public enemy #1.

                                All that and the primary piece was acquired with a pick and a low-ball offer.

                                On top of all of that, we open up more minutes to our best by the rim finisher, Marquis Daniels and our best young talent, Danny Granger. It's these two that didn't step up, and they are the reason we went into a losing tailspin.

                                Upgrades for everyone involved in the trade and a more balanced team. And you are crying about losing a pick.

                                If you could have done better under the circumstances, I'd love to hear what you would have done.
                                “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

                                “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X