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 Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

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

  • #46
    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

    Originally posted by wintermute View Post
    Nope, no funky poison pills for Lance. He's a standard unrestricted FA. Pacers don't even get to match his offers. So if he decides he wants to play for the Knicks for the minimum, he can. No point for teams to structure their offers in funny ways. Teams can still straight outbid us, of course.



    Bonuses do count against the cap if they are "likely". So I don't think we'd save a lot of cap space going that route. Raises are limited to a certain percentage of starting salary, so no you can't have a salary going 9, 9, then a sudden jump to 12.
    Front loaded contract starting at 13 would seem to basically do it.

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

      Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
      Yep, IIRC, each of the Heat Big 3 took about $15 million less over the life of their contract. Pretty small amount individually, but it helps make a difference as a whole.

      The Spurs are another great example. Tim Duncan is making less than David West right now. Manu Ginobili is making less than George Hill. These guys could have absolutely squeezed out more money from the Spurs if they really wanted to (especially Duncan), but they took less to help the team's circumstances.

      Roy Hibbert, George Hill, David West, and Paul George OTOH all seemed to squeeze out every last dime from the Pacers. Hey that's fine, I can't blame someone for maximizing their worth. It's obviously easy to sit behind a computer screen and criticize someone else for doing what's best for them financially. I've never been in that position, but I have to think that it would be hard to notice a couple of million dollars a year when you're making such an obscene amount of money and living in Indiana. Again, easy for me to say considering I'll never be offered that kind of money, but the Spurs and Heat obviously agree with this line of thinking. Their star guys have taken less money to help the team win. The Pacers OTOH don't. It just makes me have a tiny bit less sympathy for them when the tears are falling at the end of the season. What the Spurs and Heat do is just a bit more respectable than guys who seem to want to max out every last dime.

      So now fans hope that Lance is the one who takes a bit less money for the good of the team. Why in the hell should he? If I'm him, then I say screw taking less money when Hibbert/West/PG/Hill never took less for the good of the team. Why should Lance be the one to start the trend, especially when he is the one who made absolute pennies at the beginning of his career while the other four at least started out on first round salaries?
      Well let's not act like Timmy didn't get his when he was the same age as Roy, Paul, etc.

      Timmy's contracts from 2004-2012 in order

      $14,260,641
      $15,845,156
      $17,429,672
      $19,014,188
      $20,598,704
      $22,183,220
      And then he snuck in this wiley two year deal right before the cap rules changed
      $18,700,000
      $21,164,619

      That last two year deal right before the lockout was huge. Timmy made money in two years that players now a days will be lucky to see in 4, and it offered the Spurs a reason to low ball him on the next deal. It's a lot easier to say I'll take less, when you've already made more money than God. No NBA player over the next decade will sniff money like what Duncan made in his prime under these new rules (Just from their bball contract that is.) Yeah, LBJ, Wade, Bosh were all a little younger than Timmy when they took that pay cut, but they had all gotten their gigantic max deals already. Once you're up over $120 million it's a little easier to say I'll tkae a little break.

      Manu and Parker have always been the steals for the Spurs, they got them cheap early in their careers and locked them in. Manu really didn't get paid, paid until 2009 and even then he topped out $14 million last year. Manu is also older so he probably could have gotten another big deal from another team, but for a 36 year old why leave the team where you are something of a cult hero?

      David West has had a great career. Better than 95% of players who will ever come through the league. Multiple time all star, lots of wins, and even a defining play style that people will remember him for. West after this seaosn has made $75 million in his career from salary, Duncan has made over $224million. Duncan deserved every penny of it, but so did West. I really can't begrudge any of our current contracts under that microscope. Maybe Hill is just a teensy bit overpaid, but even Roy got his market value, if we hadn't bellied up to the bar Roy would have 100% gotten that money from Portland.


      My main point? Tim Duncan didn't start giving any breaks til the Spurs til he had already made enough money than anyone could literally ever need. And really the Heat big three didn't either. But Duncan specifically IMO should not be praised for suddenly giving the Spurs a break, if it really was that much of a break. It's hard to say what Duncan's market value really might have been after the 2012 season. Remember he's experienced a sort of renaissance over these past two years. Not to say he was done in 2012, but he had definitely lost a step or two.

      Another thing of note that really doesn't apply to this thread, but everyone talks about now how Pop gives his starters so much rest, well that wasn't always the case, Duncan's first six years in the league saw him play over 38 MPG every single season, topping out one year at a whopping 40.6 MPG and never being less than 38.8 MPG in any single season. So yeah....you gotta ride your stars when you have them. Even Pop knows this. (just making the point that Pop wasn't the same guy he is now 10 years ago, your coaching style involves and changes. Same thing will happen with Vogel)
      Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-10-2014, 03:09 PM.


      Comment


      • #48
        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

        Anyone have any interest in a sign and trade - See the trade forum. Hehehehe
        Last edited by Unclebuck; 06-10-2014, 10:46 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

          Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
          An unrestricted free agent, West was deciding between a two-year, $20 million deal with the Pacers and a three-year, $29 million contract with the Celtics.

          The Celtics were basically offering West another year of an amount that was almost identical to what the Pacers were paying him. West chose the shorter Pacers deal and intended up making more in 13-14 in the first year ($12 million) of his new deal than he would have in the final year of that three year Boston deal. So he ultimately made more money by coming here.

          You're right about PG, I forgot about that.

          If George makes an All-NBA team this season, triggering the raise, his salary will settle at 27 percent of the cap level, instead of the full 30 percent. That would set George’s starting salary at about $15.8 million, given the league’s projected cap for next season. That’s about $1.75 million less than George could have earned had he fought for the full 30 percent.

          http://grantland.com/features/paul-g...ing-nba-title/

          So between the four of them, they've given the Pacers about a $1.75 million dollar break (unless I'm leaving something else out), which is attributed to PG giving them a small bargain on something that is a bonus to begin with. Like I said, these four have been all about maximizing their bank accounts.
          So is every single player in the NBA. Also can someone actually show me where Lebron took less to play in Miami? I know Wade supposedly took a little less to get Lebron and Bosh there, but I'm pretty sure Lebron and Bosh both got he maximum amount Miami could pay them, it was just less than what Lebron and Bosh could have earned in CLE and TOR respectively. I mean if Lebron were to pick up both his options, he would make over $20 million next year and over $22 million the year after. How much more could Miami relaly have given them?

          What I'm saying is, yeah I believe Lebron is making less money in Miami than he would have in Cleveland, but I believe Miami gave Lebron as much money as they possibly could.

          Like you said in an earlier post, that you think the Miami guys all took something like a $15 million decrease over their lives of their deals to help Miami out and I'm saying I find that very hard to believe. That would have put Lebron at a starting salary of something along the lines of $17 million and a closing salary close to $25 million. I don't think that would have been allowable within the rules.

          EDIT: Not saying you're wrong either, just saying I don't relaly remember it ever being confirmed that Lebron took less than he could have gotten from Miami. I know it has been discussed as a way to keep the Big 3 together past these deals, but I'm not sure it applied to their original contracts excepting Wade.
          Last edited by Trader Joe; 06-10-2014, 03:26 PM.


          Comment


          • #50
            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

            Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
            True, but so is West. Yet he is making more than Tim Duncan......
            You're really obsessed with this point aren't you


            Comment


            • #51
              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Anyone have any interest in a sign and trade - Lance for Eric Bledsoe - he's restricted. Move Hill to shooting guard?
              Seems lateral to me really. The talent level at shooting guard being what it is is another reason I think you should retain Lance. Maybe if Lance really has completely turned off the rest of the team I would make that deal.


              Comment


              • #52
                Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                Originally posted by Heisenberg View Post
                Also, in a recent (want to say about a month ago) story in the IBJ Simon was verbatim quoted as saying "never say never" about the tax. Obviously that's not "hell yeah, it's only money," but it's not "under no circumstances will we enter the tax" like we heard so often before. I still don't expect it (very much don't), but it's not a hardline no.

                edit: here's the interview. actual verbatim quote is "The answer to your question is, we don’t plan to go into the tax, but you can never tell. You can’t say never ever." same gist.
                IMHO...this Team has done nothing to prove to me that they should go over the LT. If they got to the NBA Finals....yeah...I can see a valid argument....but losing like the way that they did in the end only showed me that it's a gamble to go over the LT that is not worth taking.
                Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                  Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post
                  So is every single player in the NBA. Also can someone actually show me where Lebron took less to play in Miami? I know Wade supposedly took a little less to get Lebron and Bosh there, but I'm pretty sure Lebron and Bosh both got he maximum amount Miami could pay them, it was just less than what Lebron and Bosh could have earned in CLE and TOR respectively. I mean if Lebron were to pick up both his options, he would make over $20 million next year and over $22 million the year after. How much more could Miami relaly have given them?

                  What I'm saying is, yeah I believe Lebron is making less money in Miami than he would have in Cleveland, but I believe Miami gave Lebron as much money as they possibly could.

                  Like you said in an earlier post, that you think the Miami guys all took something like a $15 million decrease over their lives of their deals to help Miami out and I'm saying I find that very hard to believe. That would have put Lebron at a starting salary of something along the lines of $17 million and a closing salary close to $25 million. I don't think that would have been allowable within the rules.

                  EDIT: Not saying you're wrong either, just saying I don't relaly remember it ever being confirmed that Lebron took less than he could have gotten from Miami. I know it has been discussed as a way to keep the Big 3 together past these deals, but I'm not sure it applied to their original contracts excepting Wade.

                  Miami didn't sign them. They were signed by Cleveland and Toronto and traded to Miami.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                    Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                    So now fans hope that Lance is the one who takes a bit less money for the good of the team. Why in the hell should he? If I'm him, then I say screw taking less money when Hibbert/West/PG/Hill never took less for the good of the team. Why should Lance be the one to start the trend, especially when he is the one who made absolute pennies at the beginning of his career while the other four at least started out on first round salaries?
                    I do not blame Lance if he takes more $$$ and bolts.

                    Keep in mind that Lance has been paid A TOTAL of $3.36 mil over the last 4 years. There has been more worthless Players that has earned that much in a single season.

                    The guy has been patient with the Pacers Organization while working hard to get himself to this stage in his career. If he does leave for more $$$...it would suck for us......but I'd be totally happy for him.
                    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                      Originally posted by Speed View Post
                      Front loaded contract starting at 13 would seem to basically do it.
                      But there's no matching contract involved is my point. If let's say Charlotte goes to Lance and says we're giving you a contract that starts at $13m and totals $50m, then Lance can either sign it or sign another offer. At no point do the Pacers get to match Charlotte's offer. At most Lance will inform the Pacers, and then the Pacers would say ok we can do $50m total but it starts at $10m, and then Lance just chooses which offer he signs.

                      Perhaps this is a bit of a minor semantics thing.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                        Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                        Anyone have any interest in a sign and trade - Lance for Eric Bledsoe - he's restricted. Move Hill to shooting guard?
                        Bledsoe supposedly wants a max contract, FYI.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                          We can all say what we would like to see happen, but only the people that truly know what happened behind closed doors can make a good judgement on if Lance should come back at all cost, if Hibbert or Hill should be dumped, etc.

                          To illustrate, TPTB might feel if Lance is let go, Hill might be more aggressive, Roy might be happier, the team as a unit might be solidified. This might be complete crap. I don't know.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Anyone have any interest in a sign and trade - Lance for Eric Bledsoe - he's restricted. Move Hill to shooting guard?
                            I've been saying that for awhile. But not if Bledsoe wants the max. I like Bledsoe, but he does have injury concerns now.
                            First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                              Originally posted by Trader Joe View Post

                              EDIT: Not saying you're wrong either, just saying I don't relaly remember it ever being confirmed that Lebron took less than he could have gotten from Miami. I know it has been discussed as a way to keep the Big 3 together past these deals, but I'm not sure it applied to their original contracts excepting Wade.

                              Lebron's starting salary with Miami in 2010-11 was $14.5 million. This year it's a hair over $19 million. He would make $22 million in 15-16 if he never opted out.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                                Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                                I've been saying that for awhile. But not if Bledsoe wants the max. I like Bledsoe, but he does have injury concerns now.
                                No cartilage in them knees.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X