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

  • #16
    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

    I'm only halfway through the article and it's doing a pretty good job of convincing me that if some Team offers him more than $8.5 mil a year or more....I'd be looking for S&T options or what options we have as part of Plan B.
    Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

      Originally posted by BillS View Post
      Why aren't you guys GMs since it's so easy to predict and you know all this way in advance? You'd be millionaires and no longer have to slum with the likes of us.

      Just think if the Pacers had just let Roy walk. We'd have a lot more flexibility going forward - except those lottery picks would have cost us more in guaranteed salary...
      I know players want the money, but it'd sure be nice to see more players take a few less million to see their team stocked with better players to win. $10M instead of $12M. C'mon, to us it's a lot, but it's peanuts for them. They also get sponsorship deals, commercials, etc to add on top.

      Even though I hate the Heat, Lebron, Wade and Bosh took less to play together for a championship. Now they are on the verge of another. Still a lot of money, but they did take less to play together.
      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


      • #18
        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

        I found this to be a very good article, particularly with the embedded GIFs to illustrate his points.

        The dilemma with Lance is that IF the team makes an affirmative decision to go in another direction, for whatever reason (prohibitive cost, uncertainty about his locker room maturity, selfishness), then the replacement for Lance will be at a lesser talent level. So, the decision is Lance (accept the risk) OR less talent.

        And, as West ages and his skills diminish, the team can reasonably expect that his talent will diminish.

        SO, by letting Lance go, there is a reasonable likelihood that 2 of the starting 5 will be less talented next year than they were last year.

        If we talk about blowing up the starting unit by trading Hill and/or Hibbert, there is a strong likelihood that 2016 arrives and a superstar matured Paul George is surrounded by an average supporting cast with no legitimate second option.

        -OR-

        You hope to catch the 2013 start of the season lightning in a bottle and expect Hibbert, George and Lance to play better next year, by keeping the core together.

        As risky as it is to keep Lance, I think the alternative is just as dangerous for the long term.

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

          Originally posted by CableKC View Post
          I'm only halfway through the article and it's doing a pretty good job of convincing me that if some Team offers him more than $8.5 mil a year or more....I'd be looking for S&T options or what options we have as part of Plan B.
          That's the thing. The first half of the article gives the stats & observations that support the case against keeping Lance & the second half of the article gives the stats & observations that support a strong case for keeping him. Cue people ignoring the part of the piece that doesn't support their views. What Lowe does is give a very balanced evaluation of Lance's current game, insight on what he could become and the risk/reward conundrum facing the team that signs him to a long-term deal.

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

            From what I am reading.....Lance is ( obviously ) capable of showing the promise that he has shown this season as long as he works on A LOT of things in the offseason ( shooting, working on his PnR, etc ). We know that he's turnover happy...mainly because of bad habits ( over dribbling ) and ( IMHO...most notably ) simply due to lack of experience.

            But this gets me back to something that I ( and many, for the LONGEST TIME ) have been advocating. I really think that all of this can EVENTUALLY be corrected ( or at least minimized ) as long as Lance is given the chance to learn and to make/correct his mistakes over time. The problem is that I don't think that he can properly learn and would only take more time to do so if we continue to run the offense the way it is run now with a 3-headed "Primary Ballhandler" where PG24/Lance/GH are the ones initiating and handling the offense.

            I really think that it would be best to let him become the proverbial "Starting PG" and let the offense flow primarily through him. He will make A LOT of mistakes, he will turn the ball over A LOT...but it will allow him to learn what he needs to do sooner. Keep in mind that doing this will likely translate into more turnovers, more mistakes and even loses.......but the sooner he learns, the more he learn from his mistakes...the better.
            Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

              Originally posted by Downtown Bang! View Post
              That's the thing. The first half of the article gives the stats & observations that support the case against keeping Lance & the second half of the article gives the stats & observations that support a strong case for keeping him. Cue people ignoring the part of the piece that doesn't support their views. What Lowe does is give a very balanced evaluation of Lance's current game, insight on what he could become and the risk/reward conundrum facing the team that signs him to a long-term deal.
              I agree....I like Zach Lowe's articles and his analysis is very well researched. The beginning does serve to remind us that there are a lot for Lance to learn. The question I have is whether all of those things can be learned and corrected over time. My guess is that all of it can be fixed over time as long as he is willing to work on it.....it's just a matter of time.
              Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                Great article. Zach Lowe is a professed Lance Stephenson fan going back to his days in high school so whenever he writes about "Born Ready", he knows what he's talking about.

                Lance is going to get a crazy offer from some team out there. The reason I feel that way can be traced to one player that recently was paid more than he deserved - Jeremy Lin. Also, if JR Smith can get 6 million a year, you know Lance is going to make much more.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                  Originally posted by BillS View Post
                  As pointed out by ECKrueger, the belief that the tax threshold is going to jump significantly for 2015-2016 and that the Pacers currently have no big escalators for that season would make it at least theoretically possible that Simon would be willing to dip into LT territory next year expecting NOT to be subject to repeater issues because of the threshold hike.

                  I go back to the fact that Bird wasted no time in any other press conference about signings to state Simon wasn't going over the LT - until the end of season one, where that was about the only reason not to re-sign Lance that was NOT mentioned.
                  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.
                  Last edited by Heisenberg; 06-10-2014, 01:28 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                    Originally posted by Sparhawk View Post
                    I know players want the money, but it'd sure be nice to see more players take a few less million to see their team stocked with better players to win. $10M instead of $12M. C'mon, to us it's a lot, but it's peanuts for them. They also get sponsorship deals, commercials, etc to add on top.

                    Even though I hate the Heat, Lebron, Wade and Bosh took less to play together for a championship. Now they are on the verge of another. Still a lot of money, but they did take less to play together.

                    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?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                      Originally posted by BillS View Post
                      Why aren't you guys GMs since it's so easy to predict and you know all this way in advance? You'd be millionaires and no longer have to slum with the likes of us.

                      Just think if the Pacers had just let Roy walk. We'd have a lot more flexibility going forward - except those lottery picks would have cost us more in guaranteed salary...
                      All I'm saying is that the Pacers do an absolute terrible job at negotiating contracts. "Mr. West, We want you back, and you want to be back with us" Here we will let you have a player option for 12 million when your 35 years old!!!!

                      Pacers certainly knew West would be 35 years old in the last year of the deal. Guess they think that if the team sucks then West could opt out and go ring chasing. Yeah right....dude isn't giving up 12 million dollars to come off the bench for some contender. He will wait until he is 36 and a FA to do that.
                      You can't get champagne from a garden hose.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                        Originally posted by BillS View Post
                        Why aren't you guys GMs since it's so easy to predict and you know all this way in advance? You'd be millionaires and no longer have to slum with the likes of us.
                        How dare you criticize this restaurant's food since you aren't a world renowned chef with your own restaurant.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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?
                          Actually.....PG and West both took less money. PG didn't go for the full 30% he could have, and capped himself at 27%, and West turned down more money from Boston to sign here the first time around.
                          Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                            Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                            Actually.....PG and West both took less money. PG didn't go for the full 30% he could have, and capped himself at 27%, and West turned down more money from Boston to sign here the first time around.
                            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.
                            Last edited by Sollozzo; 06-10-2014, 01:50 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                              I guess we should look at this team through a 2 year window now, and then what happens once our contracts clear (Mahinmi, West, Hibbert) in the summer of 2016

                              At that point we would only have Hill, Lance, PG, Solo and maybe some rookies on the books. We might be able to bring in another star through free agency during the summer, even though no one has really ever come to the Pacers as a FA.

                              That is not the worst scenario. We still have a chance to come out of the East if we get back to form, and then we can reload in a couple of years before Paul George follows the patterns of his idols and wants to be courted and go to a big market team.

                              If the front office decides that our core can't get it done, I hope they will trade anyone outside of Lance and PG for a third star (Lawson, Jrue Holliday, or whoever the rest of our roster can trade for) who will be on the books for 2016/2017 so then in 2 summers we can have the capspace of around $20-30 million to add to a core of Lawson/Lance/PG.

                              But Lance- come back!
                              Last edited by sopgy; 06-10-2014, 01:59 PM. Reason: typo

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: The Courtship of Lance Stephenson- Zach Lowe, Grantland

                                Originally posted by Sollozzo View Post
                                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.
                                Agree with the general sentiment that the salaries seem high for the 4 starters locked in with us.

                                But let's be fair.

                                Our team didn't establish the price for Hibbert. Portland did. It's clear that the Pacers didn't want to sign Hibbert to the max, which is why they let him test FA.

                                Paul George negotiated a discount on the supermax contract.

                                In retrospect, we clearly overshot on George Hill, but I think they were expecting more upside and leadership from him this year.

                                I think we also overshot on David West. Never liked the 3/36 deal, but he was worth the 12 this year, IMO.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X