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

Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

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

  • #76
    Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

    Originally posted by cdash View Post
    The love for Udoh, while understandable on some levels, is a little puzzling to me. You have these people that love Tyler and think he will come back and be solid, they want McRoberts to get minutes, and they want us to draft this guy?
    I get the feeling that a number of people would like for the Pacers to trade both Murphy and Hansbrough. Sort of a clearing the decks of a 3pt shooting PF and an injury concern. I think some people view Hansbrough the same as a kid who gets a new model train for Christmas, and they immediately break it. Then, instead of waiting for it to be repaired, they can't wait for the next Christmas to get another new model train. The first one has lost all of its "new".

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

      Originally posted by jhondog28 View Post
      OK how about if this happens. Lets say Minn gets the top pick. They already have PGs and need a solid 3. If you were the Pacers would you trade your number 10 and either Murph or Dun for the 1? i actually think Minn would think about it.
      I think their front office would be facing a firing squad if they did.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

        Originally posted by IndyPacer View Post

        Can Indiana build around Udoh? Probably not. But I see Udoh being a great player to put beside two of the players we can build around, Granger and Hibbert.
        Bingo. This draft is only deep in terms of role players. At the 10 spot, you look at who is already on your team that you want to build around. Then you pick the guy who best fits that plan.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

          Originally posted by cdash View Post
          I'm with you here. The love for Udoh, while understandable on some levels, is a little puzzling to me. You have these people that love Tyler and think he will come back and be solid, they want McRoberts to get minutes, and they want us to draft this guy?
          IMO, Udoh can play b/u C, & is the closest thin to a fit & fills a need (shot-blocker). With Murph/Foster/S.Jones up after n/y, & all undoubtable "available" in a trade, we need a big.
          IMO, Tyler is a 6th man type player untill I see other wise. Valuable, but not sure he's a starter. Same w/ McBob - but I am more intreiged by McBob's upside. IMO, Josh can get min's at the 4 & 5. Udoh may have the best shill set to be a starter @ PF. Maybe on JO'B's starter, but a starter for a coach who runs a real NBA offense.
          "Larry Bird: You are Officially On the Clock! (3/24/08)"
          (Watching You Like A Hawk!)

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

            Originally posted by PacerGuy View Post
            IMO, Udoh can play b/u C, & is the closest thin to a fit & fills a need (shot-blocker). With Murph/Foster/S.Jones up after n/y, & all undoubtable "available" in a trade, we need a big.
            IMO, Tyler is a 6th man type player untill I see other wise. Valuable, but not sure he's a starter. Same w/ McBob - but I am more intreiged by McBob's upside. IMO, Josh can get min's at the 4 & 5. Udoh may have the best shill set to be a starter @ PF. Maybe on JO'B's starter, but a starter for a coach who runs a real NBA offense.
            People keep talking about OB's offense. How is it much different than what Orlando runs?
            Don't talk to me about personnel.
            {o,o}
            |)__)
            -"-"-

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I disagree with your second point. Isn't the point of lottery picks to get someone to build around? I think there are potential building blocks there at #10, but I'm not sure I'd lump Udoh in there. He seems like another role player to me.
              We ( indirectly ) drafted Brush at the 11th spot 2 seasons ago....although he's off by 1 draft spot ( 11th compared to the 10th spot )....to ( slightly ) illustrate my point.....were you expecting to get a Player at the 11th spot to build around?

              I would point you to count55s thread about what type of Players are Drafted at their respective spots if I could find it. Although I can hope that we get a Player to build around at the 10th spot...I'm not expecting to find that...I'm expecting to find a quality Starter if not a very solid quality 6th to 7th rotational type Player at the 10th draft spot.

              I guess it comes down to what you think the type of player that Udoh will turn out to be....which you think will be a role player. If we were to draft him......I think that he would be considered a "role Player" as his "floor" and hope that he can be a quality Starter.

              Originally posted by cdash View Post
              I understand that he's different and does different things, but altogether, is he an upgrade? Is he a big enough upgrade to spend justify a top 10 pick on a position you drafted in the lottery the season before?
              I don't disagree with you here.....although I would like to throw caution to the wind....I know that we're already stacked with 6 PF/Cs in the rotation. Drafting another one without intending to move one of the existing 6 PF/C would not make any sense.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                Don't feel bad about the spelling. I seem to remember a player people had similar problems with. We wound up calling him Yes-sir-its-a-cabbage.
                Thanks my friend
                Sittin on top of the world!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                  Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                  I get the feeling that a number of people would like for the Pacers to trade both Murphy and Hansbrough. Sort of a clearing the decks of a 3pt shooting PF and an injury concern. I think some people view Hansbrough the same as a kid who gets a new model train for Christmas, and they immediately break it. Then, instead of waiting for it to be repaired, they can't wait for the next Christmas to get another new model train. The first one has lost all of its "new".
                  Tom,
                  I know hindsight is 20/20

                  But were you on board with the Hansbrough pick at the time?

                  I was not ( not because of any race related issue) because I felt McBob needed a chance and Tyler was goiong to have problems in the NBA because he couldnt just muscle his way to the basket like he did in college. I was not suprised at all to see him get his shot blocked often

                  I do love the intensity and grit he shows. He reminds me of Antonio Davis a little and we so lack an enforcer
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                    Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                    Bingo. This draft is only deep in terms of role players. At the 10 spot, you look at who is already on your team that you want to build around. Then you pick the guy who best fits that plan.
                    Tom,

                    Dont you think the Pacers have to pick the best player available , regardless of position when were so clearley void of talent?
                    Sittin on top of the world!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

                      But were you on board with the Hansbrough pick at the time?
                      Actually, I was kind of surprised by the pick. Like many others, I thought surely the Pacers would go for a point guard. It may be hard to believe, but I did not watch him play much in college. However, having heard (and read) of all his accomplishments at UNC, that got me a bit excited. Sadly, we have to wait for next season to really know if he was a good pick or not.

                      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

                      Dont you think the Pacers have to pick the best player available , regardless of position when were so clearley void of talent?
                      My take on this years draft is that after the first couple of picks, the draft itself is devoid of really good talent. Role players all over the place. There's no doubt that someone in this draft will turn into a very good player, surprising a lot of people. But, I'm not at all hopped up on any of them.

                      I think that is, in part, why we are seeing so many differing opinion on many of the PF's. One person is said to be a good defender, but weak on defense. Another is said to be good on defense, but weak on offense. Where the heck are the players that are good at both?

                      I would try like heck to trade for an established player from a team overly deep at one position (Think Minnesota, with Jefferson and Love), even if we had to take a bad contract back for an expiring. Sort of a #10 + expiring + young player for Jefferson + bad contract. I know it sounds bad, but I think it is the best we could do.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        I have to totally DISAGREE with that statement!
                        So, you think we'll get a player at 10 that's significantly better than what we have at their position already?

                        Remember pretty much everybody else on the roster was picked in the high teens. Other than Granger, there's no stars in that bunch. Just solid ballplayers.

                        So we'll end up with another solid player who's not much better or not much worse than what we already have.

                        Not that there's anything wrong with that. Just if you are expecting a franchise-changing player there, you are most likely going to be disappointed.

                        Originally posted by Justin Tyme View Post
                        So what would you do with the #10 pick, since you feel the Pacers couldn't do much better with whoever they pick at #10?
                        Assuming you can't package the pick and player to move up - and I'm assuming getting back into the top 4 is unlikely - then I'd just take the best player available. Boring, but it fits with the general strategy of developing assets that can later be turned into the player we need when we finally get to "one player away".
                        You're caught up in the Internet / you think it's such a great asset / but you're wrong, wrong, wrong
                        All that fiber optic gear / still cannot take away the fear / like an island song

                        - Jimmy Buffett

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                          I would try like heck to trade for an established player from a team overly deep at one position (Think Minnesota, with Jefferson and Love), even if we had to take a bad contract back for an expiring. Sort of a #10 + expiring + young player for Jefferson + bad contract. I know it sounds bad, but I think it is the best we could do.
                          Interesting becuase I had the same commment in an earlier post

                          Do you think Roy and Al Jefferson could play together at the same time or would that make for a slow and pourous defensive front line?
                          Sittin on top of the world!

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post

                            Better question : Would you entertain a package of Rush, expiring and our number 10 pick for Al Jefferson?
                            I would, yes. I think Al Jefferson is better than any of the options at #10, and while I love his defense, I think Rush is expendable.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                              Originally posted by CableKC View Post
                              We ( indirectly ) drafted Brush at the 11th spot 2 seasons ago....although he's off by 1 draft spot ( 11th compared to the 10th spot )....to ( slightly ) illustrate my point.....were you expecting to get a Player at the 11th spot to build around?

                              I would point you to count55s thread about what type of Players are Drafted at their respective spots if I could find it. Although I can hope that we get a Player to build around at the 10th spot...I'm not expecting to find that...I'm expecting to find a quality Starter if not a very solid quality 6th to 7th rotational type Player at the 10th draft spot.

                              I guess it comes down to what you think the type of player that Udoh will turn out to be....which you think will be a role player. If we were to draft him......I think that he would be considered a "role Player" as his "floor" and hope that he can be a quality Starter.


                              I don't disagree with you here.....although I would like to throw caution to the wind....I know that we're already stacked with 6 PF/Cs in the rotation. Drafting another one without intending to move one of the existing 6 PF/C would not make any sense.
                              Yes, I remember that thread, and I was one of the people arguing against that line of thinking. I find it a little depressing that we are resigning ourselves to a mediocre selection just because past history dictates it might be. See what you can do to reverse the trend as opposed to resigning yourself to the fate. There's always guys drafted 10-30 that end up being really good players, so let's find one.

                              I'm mostly arguing against Udoh's value. I said before that I think you can get players that have a similar skill set much later in the draft, so why spend a top 10 pick on a guy like that? I would like someone to explain to me what makes Ekpe Udoh a much better prospect than Jarvis Varnado.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Chad Ford's Mock Draft 1.0

                                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                                Actually, I was kind of surprised by the pick. Like many others, I thought surely the Pacers would go for a point guard. It may be hard to believe, but I did not watch him play much in college. However, having heard (and read) of all his accomplishments at UNC, that got me a bit excited. Sadly, we have to wait for next season to really know if he was a good pick or not.

                                My take on this years draft is that after the first couple of picks, the draft itself is devoid of really good talent. Role players all over the place. There's no doubt that someone in this draft will turn into a very good player, surprising a lot of people. But, I'm not at all hopped up on any of them.

                                I think that is, in part, why we are seeing so many differing opinion on many of the PF's. One person is said to be a good defender, but weak on defense. Another is said to be good on defense, but weak on offense. Where the heck are the players that are good at both?
                                Let's say that the Pacers are focused on 2 Players....one that is a Player that is good on the offensive end but not on the Defensive end.....then another Player that is good on the Defensive end but not on the Offensive end. Whose the BPA? I guess whichever skill that you value more is the deciding factor.

                                But this is part of the problem with anybody drafted beyond the #5 spot.....we have a whole mess of players that fall into this type of scenario. IMHO, unless the workouts really pushes some Players to the top of the 2nd Tier of Draftees ( Players like Monroe, Udoh, Aldrich, Patterson, Aminu...and maybe Bledsoe ) and therefore makes one of the "heads and shoulders" above the rest ( hence a no-brainer to draft at the 10th spot )....it's going to be difficult to really say who is the BPA...cuz you can easily make arguments that one Player is better then the other because of "this or that".

                                Originally posted by Tom White View Post
                                I would try like heck to trade for an established player from a team overly deep at one position (Think Minnesota, with Jefferson and Love), even if we had to take a bad contract back for an expiring. Sort of a #10 + expiring + young player for Jefferson + bad contract. I know it sounds bad, but I think it is the best we could do.
                                Taking on Jefferson's contract would be the equivalent to taking on a Bad contract IMHO ( Starts at $13 mil in 2010-2011 and gets a $1mil bump every season until 2012-2013 ). Granger doesn't even earn that much. Jefferson isn't that great on defense and is paid way more. I think he's a solid Starting PF/C....but when it comes to his contract...he's overpaid.

                                Jefferson isn't a Pau Gasol level Player ( in terms of value )...which netted the Grizzlies that type of deal. I think of him more like another "Robin"....at best....which IMHO could net an Expiring contract and a Lottery pick...but not an Expiring Contract+Lottery Pick+ Prospect.

                                I would possibly consider #10+Expiring for Jeffereson+#16 ( or even #23 ).
                                Last edited by CableKC; 05-07-2010, 03:43 PM.
                                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X