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

The Pacers ownership and front office are either incapable or not willing to make the decisions that will bring us a championship.

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

  • Originally posted by Drew46229 View Post

    So much revisionist history...
    The reason they gave up Kawhi, to the extent that they did, was they already had a raw, athletic wing who was primarily known for defense and taken from a small school in a small conference backing their all-everything SF/face of the franchise at the time. There was no way to predict Danny's career altering and ultimately ending series of knee injuries at the time. The Pacers adding veteran help (in the way of Hill and later that year David West) were more important at the time than adding another developmental piece. The Pacers went from a fiesty first round exit (at the hands of the 1 seed Bulls) that was ranked 23rd on offense and 12th on defense to a team that took the eventual champs to 6 hard-fought games (in the 2nd round) and finished the season 7th on offense and 9th on defense largely on the strength of the contribution of the aforementioned vets, along with growth from all three of Paul George, Lance Stephenson and Roy Hibbert. The next two seasons yielded even greater results, featuring the team making the Eastern Conference Finals and pushing the Heatles to 7 games the next season (and finishing as the NBA's number 1 defense by a country mile) and a 2nd consecutive trip to the ECF that ended in 6 games following a particularly rough patch of team chemistry following the now-infamous GQ shoot. (I say, in jest)

    George Hill and David West's timely additions to the team took them from a scrappy 1st round out to a perennial contender overnight. San Antonio had an even greater degree of success with KL, but they were better prior to the trade. I know everything has to be defined in terms of who won and lost a trade now days, but I honestly don't think this particular trade was as lop-sided as it is pilloried for being by large portions of our fanbase. Knowing what we know now, I don't think many would argue that a top-5 player in the league would not be worth keeping but that is the nature of the incomplete information of an amateur draft.
    ********.

    the Chicago Bulls had Michael Jordan, they didnt trade Scottie Pippen for a average starting PG.

    Paul George and Kawhi Leonard together could compete with anyone, I dont care who we already had. Their job is to know that. They blew it.

    It was totally lopsided. A MVP caliber player for a guy who never made an all star team.

    If you thought George Hill moved the needle for us and gave us a real chance at Miami, you were wrong. We were still huge underdogs and over achieved in those series because of our bigs, not George Hill. And we never got over the hump. Thats not revisionist history, thats just history.
    "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post

      ********.

      the Chicago Bulls had Michael Jordan, they didnt trade Scottie Pippen for a average starting PG.

      Paul George and Kawhi Leonard together could compete with anyone, I dont care who we already had. Their job is to know that. They blew it.

      It was totally lopsided. A MVP caliber player for a guy who never made an all star team.

      If you thought George Hill moved the needle for us and gave us a real chance at Miami, you were wrong. We were still huge underdogs and over achieved in those series because of our bigs, not George Hill. And we never got over the hump. Thats not revisionist history, thats just history.
      That Chicago Bulls analogy wasn't even close to being like what the Pacers did. That's one of the strangest comparisons I've read. Chicago had Michael Jordan who is a SG. They also already had John Paxson a popular PG with the team. Why would they trade Scottie for a PG? The fact the Bulls actually traded Brad Sellers to Seattle for the rights to Scottie Pippen makes your comparison even weirder.

      The Pacers at the time of the trade were planning to go after David West to be their new PF. They had Tyler Hansbrough who just came off a good season and playoff series against the Bulls. Danny Granger was still averaging 20+ games a year and Paul George was starting to show his promise. Their weakest position was PG. They had wanted George Hill for a couple of seasons and actually had considered trading the #10 pick for him the previous season (thankfully they didn't since Paul George landed in their laps). So they made the trade and a lot of teams had passed on Kawhi because they thought he was a defender with huge hands and long arms but without a jumper. Kawhi has turned out to be so much more and it was a bad trade. No one thought that he would be this good at the time of the draft. You might need a little refresher on what actually went down and why. This article is a good one. http://grantland.com/features/analyz...erence-finals/

      Comment


      • Thats because it wasnt a comparison.....I was addressing your assertion that we didnt need Leonard because we had PG and Danny Granger.

        You admit in your post that Im right, it was a bad trade, but you are still arguing with me for some reason. Thats all I said, it was a bad trade. And it was. I fully understand their thinking, I am just arguing why its completely wrong.
        "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

        Comment


        • It is pretty depressing to think the Pacers had PG and Kawhi in their hands.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BornIndy View Post
            It is pretty depressing to think the Pacers had PG and Kawhi in their hands.
            I totally understand that was a huge miss. But it happens all the time. When we picked Paul George in 2010, Golden State could have picked him but chose Ekpe Udoh who I think averaged a point this last season for some other team. Also, Philadelphia picked Evan Turner when both DeMarcus Cousins and Paul George were available.

            The Spurs are not immune. They chose Corey Joseph who is a good backup right before Jimmy Butler was picked by the Bulls.

            With that said, if Kawhi had become a Pacer I seriously doubt the team would have fallen apart. Paul and Kawhi would have been a dominant tandem and the Pacers would have built around them. The fact is, the Pacers had Collison and could have kept him in there as PG instead of dumping him from George Hill. Most here think Collison is the second coming of Magic Johnson or something along those lines so I suspect we would be a pretty good back court and wing combination.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Taterhead View Post
              Thats because it wasnt a comparison.....I was addressing your assertion that we didnt need Leonard because we had PG and Danny Granger.
              The assertion that we didn't need Leonard leads to another assertion, though. We wouldn't draft Leonard. It was San Antonio who wanted to draft Kawhi Leonard and we picked him for them. Who knows who we would pick if we didn't trade for Hill?

              And even if we did pick Leonard, would he develop into the player he is right now behind DG and PG? He clearly wouldn't. Kawhi wasn't one of those guys with generational talent. He was a project with a number of question marks (25% from 3 in college overall, 29.1% in his sophomore year, 14.1 PPG overall, 15.5 PPG in his sophomore year despite averaging around 32 minutes per game). Scouts were doubting his shooting ability and his offensive ceiling. Kawhi then went to the Spurs, worked his *** off, learned from at least 4 future HOFers (Pop, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) and slowly, year by year, became the player he is today. As a Spur, he got big minutes from the get go (24 MPG in his rookie season, 31.2 MPG in his second season), went deep into the playoffs every year and amassed valuable experience and was allowed to blossom.

              We can't be sure that all of that happen had Kawhi been a Pacer. It's very likely that his trajectory and progression as a player would be completely different.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
                Most here think Collison is the second coming of Magic Johnson or something along those lines so I suspect we would be a pretty good back court and wing combination.
                No one has said that. Most people consider DC the most expendable starter.
                Originally posted by IrishPacer
                Empty vessels make the most noise.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                  The assertion that we didn't need Leonard leads to another assertion, though. We wouldn't draft Leonard. It was San Antonio who wanted to draft Kawhi Leonard and we picked him for them. Who knows who we would pick if we didn't trade for Hill?

                  And even if we did pick Leonard, would he develop into the player he is right now behind DG and PG? He clearly wouldn't. Kawhi wasn't one of those guys with generational talent. He was a project with a number of question marks (25% from 3 in college overall, 29.1% in his sophomore year, 14.1 PPG overall, 15.5 PPG in his sophomore year despite averaging around 32 minutes per game). Scouts were doubting his shooting ability and his offensive ceiling. Kawhi then went to the Spurs, worked his *** off, learned from at least 4 future HOFers (Pop, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) and slowly, year by year, became the player he is today. As a Spur, he got big minutes from the get go (24 MPG in his rookie season, 31.2 MPG in his second season), went deep into the playoffs every year and amassed valuable experience and was allowed to blossom.

                  We can't be sure that all of that happen had Kawhi been a Pacer. It's very likely that his trajectory and progression as a player would be completely different.
                  Leonard only would have been behind Granger for one season - his rookie year in 11-12. In 12-13, Granger missed the entire season aside for a few games when he attempted a comeback. From that point on, it would have been the PG-Leonard show.

                  Hindsight is always 20/20, but in hindsight this absolutely is a horrible trade. 0% of executives would pull the trigger on it if they had a crystal ball and could see what Leonard would become.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                    Leonard only would have been behind Granger for one season - his rookie year in 11-12. In 12-13, Granger missed the entire season aside for a few games when he attempted a comeback. From that point on, it would have been the PG-Leonard show.

                    Hindsight is always 20/20, but in hindsight this absolutely is a horrible trade. 0% of executives would pull the trigger on it if they had a crystal ball and could see what Leonard would become.
                    If you knew in advance that Granger would blow out his knee and end his career I either want you to pick me some stocks or lottery numbers.

                    Sent from my LG-H700 using Tapatalk

                    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


                    • Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      If you knew in advance that Granger would blow out his knee and end his career I either want you to pick me some stocks or lottery numbers.

                      Sent from my LG-H700 using Tapatalk
                      Not the point I was making. The statement was that Leonard would have been behind Granger and PG . Factually, that’s not what would have happened given Granger’s health. Of course we couldn’t have predicted at the time what would happen, but now we know what did happen and can analyze based on that.

                      You’re right that you can’t predict the future - which is why those who don’t like this trade believe that you should keep talent and then figure things out. In 2011, conventional wisdom was that Leonard would have been buried behind Granger and PG, but that’s not what would have happened at all. That’s why there’s an argument to be made for keeping the talent and letting other things fall into place.

                      I understand the rationale behind the deal at the time. Bird wanted veteran leadership and Hill did fill that role for a few years. But hindsight is 20/20 and clearly no one outside of this forum would do that trade today.

                      Leonard would have been coached defense by Vogel and fit in nicely with Hibbert/West/PG. In a short amount of time, it would have been the PG/Leonard show.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post

                        Leonard only would have been behind Granger for one season - his rookie year in 11-12. In 12-13, Granger missed the entire season aside for a few games when he attempted a comeback. From that point on, it would have been the PG-Leonard show.

                        Hindsight is always 20/20, but in hindsight this absolutely is a horrible trade. 0% of executives would pull the trigger on it if they had a crystal ball and could see what Leonard would become.
                        As you said, hindsight is 20/20. I wasn't arguing hindsight. I was explaining our reasoning for the trade and for why even had we kept the pick we wouldn't pick Kawhi and that even we did he probably wouldn't be the player he is right now.
                        Originally posted by IrishPacer
                        Empty vessels make the most noise.

                        Comment


                        • Jackie MacMullan on Lowe podcast went all in on the Simmons and how they never want to spend, they also connect Larry going away to that.


                          @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by BillS View Post
                            If you knew in advance that Granger would blow out his knee and end his career I either want you to pick me some stocks or lottery numbers.

                            Sent from my LG-H700 using Tapatalk
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                              As you said, hindsight is 20/20. I wasn't arguing hindsight. I was explaining our reasoning for the trade and for why even had we kept the pick we wouldn't pick Kawhi and that even we did he probably wouldn't be the player he is right now.
                              I get that a lot of the criticism of this trade is based on hindsight. Obviously if Leonard’s potential had been such a given, he would have been the #1 pick instead of the 15th.

                              That being said, I just don’t understand the mindset that Leonard probably wouldn’t be the player he is now had he come to Indy. Sure the Spurs were unique and elite, but it’s not as if the Pacers were chopped liver at the time. Leonard would have thrived in our defensive based system. Vogel would have coached him up as an elite defender and he would have fit right in with Hibbert/West/PG/doesn’t matter whoever else because those four would have been studs together.

                              The Pacers system at the time allowed Lance Stephenson to get serious consideration as an all-star. Therefore, I have a hard time believing Leonard wouldn’t be the player he is today had he come here. Things wouldn’t have developed exactly the same, but he ultimately would have had his chance to breakout on our winning team.
                              Last edited by Sollozzo; 01-24-2019, 11:38 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

                                The assertion that we didn't need Leonard leads to another assertion, though. We wouldn't draft Leonard. It was San Antonio who wanted to draft Kawhi Leonard and we picked him for them. Who knows who we would pick if we didn't trade for Hill?

                                And even if we did pick Leonard, would he develop into the player he is right now behind DG and PG? He clearly wouldn't. Kawhi wasn't one of those guys with generational talent. He was a project with a number of question marks (25% from 3 in college overall, 29.1% in his sophomore year, 14.1 PPG overall, 15.5 PPG in his sophomore year despite averaging around 32 minutes per game). Scouts were doubting his shooting ability and his offensive ceiling. Kawhi then went to the Spurs, worked his *** off, learned from at least 4 future HOFers (Pop, Duncan, Ginobili, Parker) and slowly, year by year, became the player he is today. As a Spur, he got big minutes from the get go (24 MPG in his rookie season, 31.2 MPG in his second season), went deep into the playoffs every year and amassed valuable experience and was allowed to blossom.

                                We can't be sure that all of that happen had Kawhi been a Pacer. It's very likely that his trajectory and progression as a player would be completely different.
                                And if they picked someone else, it also wouldve been a bad decision.

                                And I dont buy this theory that he wouldnt be Kawhi Leonard. Maybe offensively.....but his defense has been there from Day 1.

                                you say we wouldnt have taken him, but the Spurs actually traded for him and they had a far more stacked roster than we did at the time. They couldve maxe the argument they didnt need him too.

                                That whole argument is just making excuses for a bad decision.
                                "Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X