View Poll Results: What word best describes your preference moving forward for the Raptors?

Voters
38. You may not vote on this poll
  • Tanker

    12 31.58%
  • Tweaker

    26 68.42%
Page 13 of 47 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 260 of 932

Thread: Rebuild or Re-tool? (thread merge in post #358)

  1. #241
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,222
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    Yes, there are always all-star to near all-star talent in the top 5 but getting it is never a guarantee. From 2003-2009, there are 35 players selected in the top 5 but only 15 are all-stars today and 12 are either on their way out of the league if not already there. I am not arguing a top 5 pick is not the best way to get all-star talent either. But the only way your logic works without fail is if you get the #1 pick and don't make a wrong choice (i.e. are perfect). Imagine not getting the #1 pick in 2004. Imagine if Durant went #1 in 2007. Imagine if Memphis kept Love (thereby not getting Mayo) and selected Harden (thereby not selecting Thabeet)? What fall out for today. There are a ridiculous amount of variables that do not exist in a vacuum that go in to the draft.
    No, not all 35 top five picks from 2003-09 are currently all stars but that would also be impossible. There's only 24 all star spots - 15 of them are currently occupied by top five picks and four more spots are occupied by top ten picks, and that doesn't include Rose who would likely have taken Holiday's spot this year if not for injuries this season. Two thirds of the game is made up of top five guys and 80% of the rosters were drafted in the top ten. I feel like this actually strengthens the case for drafting at the top of the lottery.

    I hear the term "luck" thrown around so often when it comes to the draft. Yes, there's a certain amount of inherit luck that is involved but I really don't think it's the blind shot-in-the-dark that some make it out to be. Just because something isn't guaranteed to be successful doesn't necessarily mean you're lucky when it does. If that was the case, everything in the NBA is predicated on luck as quite frankly, nothing is guaranteed. There are letdowns in the top five but more often than not you're going to get a good to great player at this part of the draft.
    Then you have all sorts of other issues once you are lucky enough to get the talent: What happens if you don't get a franchise talent - just a couple of borderline all-stars? What happens if your star player becomes a prima donna and wants to go to a larger market? What happens if your all-stars aren't good enough to win on their own and bolt to join up with other all stars to win (or if they become UFA and just want to leave)? What happens if injuries destroy what you have built before it ever gets a chance to reach its potential? What happens if you max out your two all-stars and you don't have enough role players to field a winning team? What happens if you have a million dollar talent with a five cent attitude/work ethic? What happens if your NCAA-1st team, National Player of the Year is just not good enough to make the step to the NBA despite being hailed from all media and scouts as a can't miss? What happens if your star players don't gel on or off court? What happens if the player you draft never improves either through already maximizing talent or poor work ethic? What happens if the talent becomes a different person with millions at their disposal? What happens if it takes the player 5-6 years to put it all together?
    Then you're probably somewhere around the level of what the Raptors are today, although you'd be paying the roster a whole lot less because of rookie scale deals and you'd probably have a lot more flexibility to make changes. If one of the worst case outcomes of the rebuild plan is that we end up in the same vicinity as our current ceiling (fringe playoff team) then why is everyone so afraid to roll the dice considering the best case scenario would be so much greater?


    So in the end your theory is draft in top 5 for 2-3 seasons, get franchise talent, and voila championship contender. If this doesn't work, then it is the GM's fault then fire him (and the whole front office) and bring in someone else. I cannot begin to describe how simple minded and short sighted I think this is. If there was a cookie cutter approach to winning, everyone would do it.
    Once again, there's a lot more that goes into a rebuild then just getting bad and hoping to land a James/Durant. It's about creating and maintaining flexibility; draft picks, assets and financial freedom. However if there ever were a time to tear it down with a high draft pick in mind, now would be the time to do it when there seems to be multiple franchise type talents available in 2014.


    I am not saying what you are advocating is impossible. What I am saying is there is more than one way to build a championship contending team and no way is a sure thing even with the best management. The hilarious thing in the NBA right now there are 4 teams who all were built in different manners competing for the title (San Antonio: injury "luck" leading to #1 pick combined with the best management in the game; Miami: free agency collusion among players; Indiana: a team built through 10-17 draft picks and a key free agent signing in West (a #18 draft pick!); and Memphis: one top 5 pick currently playing and trades/mid-level to lower tier free agents). The one team built in the manner you suggest is knocked out of the playoffs because CBA issues arose resulting in trading Harden and then an injury occurred to Westbrook.
    The Pacers style of team building is MUCH more of an anomaly than the teams who did it through the lottery and high draft picks. I'm confident in saying that you could count the number of teams to just make a Conference Finals with no top ten picks on their roster on one hand.


    I'm not saying that the tank strategy comes with a guarantee of success. It doesn't. But what I am sure of is that filling up your roster with overpaid and overlapping players that don't seem to fit isn't going to take you anywhere. I guess that's really what drives my desire to start over - I look at the current Raps roster and think it's inevitable in two years time anyway. Why spend those two seasons spinning the tires?

  2. #242
    Raptors Republic All-Star ebrian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Markham
    Posts
    1,546
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote NoPropsneeded wrote: View Post
    Bottom line is. Raptors have more talent and the Cavs don't
    Look I get, you're the type that leaves things to chance and lives in the here and now, and that's fine. But most guys around here are big picture types. Even Apollo who is against the blow up still looks ahead. And when you look ahead at the kind of flexibility that the Cavaliers have going forward, it's unbelievable. Yes, absolutely Toronto has more talent today. We also have a payroll of $73M. The Cavs have half that. HALF. And we only won 10 more games.

    To put this into perspective, yes -- the Cavs aren't finished yet. But we are. That's correct -- next summer, in 2014, we're at the cap. We'll have $61M in committed salaries next summer, and the cap this year was $58M. This roster that you see before you, is what we're stuck with unless we make trades (which could happen, but I don't want to add that level of speculation because of the million possibilities that the Cavs can do with their $22M cap space).

    You guys want to compare starting lineups--I don't see the point. That's like me asking you to start building a car with your bare hands, and coming in 5 minutes later and declaring that my skateboard goes faster than your car. All we need to know is the Cavs won 24 games and we won 34, and that their payroll is 50% of ours. All you and I need to know is that we were only 10 games better than they were, but they can afford to add 2 DeMar DeRozans and a Rudy Gay without hitting the luxury tax.
    your pal,
    ebrian

  3. #243
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    No, not all 35 top five picks from 2003-09 are currently all stars but that would also be impossible. There's only 24 all star spots - 15 of them are currently occupied by top five picks and four more spots are occupied by top ten picks, and that doesn't include Rose who would likely have taken Holiday's spot this year if not for injuries this season. Two thirds of the game is made up of top five guys and 80% of the rosters were drafted in the top ten. I feel like this actually strengthens the case for drafting at the top of the lottery.

    I hear the term "luck" thrown around so often when it comes to the draft. Yes, there's a certain amount of inherit luck that is involved but I really don't think it's the blind shot-in-the-dark that some make it out to be. Just because something isn't guaranteed to be successful doesn't necessarily mean you're lucky when it does. If that was the case, everything in the NBA is predicated on luck as quite frankly, nothing is guaranteed. There are letdowns in the top five but more often than not you're going to get a good to great player at this part of the draft.
    If you are a skilled talent evaluator, then no, it is not a blind-shot-in-the dark. However, before you get to use the skill of talent evaluation you need balls to bounce your way, the talent to be available in the draft you are picking, and/or other teams not to see the same upside in the talent you see as well. The luck stems from things beyond your control.


    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    Then you're probably somewhere around the level of what the Raptors are today, although you'd be paying the roster a whole lot less because of rookie scale deals and you'd probably have a lot more flexibility to make changes. If one of the worst case outcomes of the rebuild plan is that we end up in the same vicinity as our current ceiling (fringe playoff team) then why is everyone so afraid to roll the dice considering the best case scenario would be so much greater?
    But what happens when those not quite all-stars or injury prone players come up for contract renewals? Are you going to let them just walk? They are assets after all. But they don't have considerable trade value because of not reaching expectations when drafted or injury history. Again, I am in total agreement the best way to get a top talent is through the draft but it is not a guarantee.

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    Once again, there's a lot more that goes into a rebuild then just getting bad and hoping to land a James/Durant. It's about creating and maintaining flexibility; draft picks, assets and financial freedom. However if there ever were a time to tear it down with a high draft pick in mind, now would be the time to do it when there seems to be multiple franchise type talents available in 2014.
    Exactly. Which is why tearing it down and hoping for lottery luck (balls bouncing, players/talent available in draft year, players/talent available when you select) is not the only way to rebuild. Indiana is one example. Memphis is another. Houston is another current example. Atlanta is another work in progress.

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    The Pacers style of team building is MUCH more of an anomaly than the teams who did it through the lottery and high draft picks. I'm confident in saying that you could count the number of teams to just make a Conference Finals with no top ten picks on their roster on one hand.


    I'm not saying that the tank strategy comes with a guarantee of success. It doesn't. But what I am sure of is that filling up your roster with overpaid and overlapping players that don't seem to fit isn't going to take you anywhere. I guess that's really what drives my desire to start over - I look at the current Raps roster and think it's inevitable in two years time anyway. Why spend those two seasons spinning the tires?
    You are changing the conversation/debate/argument with the bold.

    The underlined is what most people are saying. Until now it appeared you were not acknowledging this.

    The larger font is a fair point. If you think the current assets on the team cannot yield better fitting pieces to puzzle, then you have a point. Personally, I think there are some good pieces to work with (Lowry, Gay, Amir, JV, Ross, Fields). What can other assets yield to compliment those?

    But for the record, I am up for anything (tinker, blow it up) as long as the current path is aborted as soon as possible and whoever is making the decisions has enough patience to see the plan through to completion. Colangelo went half-assed in an attempt to save his own ass and that is what led us to where the Raptosr are today.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  4. #244
    Raptors Republic Veteran NoPropsneeded's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    5,864
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote ebrian wrote: View Post
    Look I get, you're the type that leaves things to chance and lives in the here and now, and that's fine. But most guys around here are big picture types. Even Apollo who is against the blow up still looks ahead. And when you look ahead at the kind of flexibility that the Cavaliers have going forward, it's unbelievable. Yes, absolutely Toronto has more talent today. We also have a payroll of $73M. The Cavs have half that. HALF. And we only won 10 more games.

    To put this into perspective, yes -- the Cavs aren't finished yet. But we are. That's correct -- next summer, in 2014, we're at the cap. We'll have $61M in committed salaries next summer, and the cap this year was $58M. This roster that you see before you, is what we're stuck with unless we make trades (which could happen, but I don't want to add that level of speculation because of the million possibilities that the Cavs can do with their $22M cap space).

    You guys want to compare starting lineups--I don't see the point. That's like me asking you to start building a car with your bare hands, and coming in 5 minutes later and declaring that my skateboard goes faster than your car. All we need to know is the Cavs won 24 games and we won 34, and that their payroll is 50% of ours. All you and I need to know is that we were only 10 games better than they were, but they can afford to add 2 DeMar DeRozans and a Rudy Gay without hitting the luxury tax.
    So Payroll is their advantage? Sure they have a ton of cap space but that doesn't really mean they will have a better future. Who is going to want to play in Cleveland? lets be honest here. You can have all the capspace in the world but if you can't get big name players to play there then it is useless.

    Difference between these two teams is not only the talent but the ability to lure players by winning, Toronto is much closer to winning than Cleveland is at this point. Also you are forgetting the emergence of JV as a legit Superstar/All star C and possibly Ross as a significant bench piece.

    Call me a homer but i see Toronto having a better future. You can bash me all you want if i'm wrong, it certainly won't be the first time.
    Last edited by NoPropsneeded; Mon May 27th, 2013 at 11:05 AM.

  5. #245
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,222
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Matt52 wrote: View Post
    If you are a skilled talent evaluator, then no, it is not a blind-shot-in-the dark. However, before you get to use the skill of talent evaluation you need balls to bounce your way, the talent to be available in the draft you are picking, and/or other teams not to see the same upside in the talent you see as well. The luck stems from things beyond your control.
    Just because something involves variables beyond your control does not mean it's "luck" when it works out. If that was the case, any successful move in the NBA (drafts, trades, free agency) requires a great deal of luck and the argument kind of falls in on itself. You create a plan, you put yourself in the best possible position to pull it off and then you make the best possible decisions within that plan to be successful.

    And beyond that, this isn't even a hypothetical draft we're talking about. We know what the 2014 draft looks like and it's loaded with difference makers. You can't use the "you never know what type of draft year it will be" mantra in this case.

    But what happens when those not quite all-stars or injury prone players come up for contract renewals? Are you going to let them just walk? They are assets after all. But they don't have considerable trade value because of not reaching expectations when drafted or injury history. Again, I am in total agreement the best way to get a top talent is through the draft but it is not a guarantee.
    You sign your "not quite all star" players to non cap-killing contracts and continue building. There's nothing wrong with having guys like Rudy Gay on your roster - paying them nearly a third of the cap is what's criminal. If someone is too injury prone or a bust then you let them go, although I want to re-iterate that swinging and missing in the top five happens a lot less than getting a player that ranks somewhere between very good and great.

    Exactly. Which is why tearing it down and hoping for lottery luck (balls bouncing, players/talent available in draft year, players/talent available when you select) is not the only way to rebuild. Indiana is one example. Memphis is another. Houston is another current example. Atlanta is another work in progress.
    I still think you're misusing the term luck. If your definition is that it requires variables out of your control falling in your direction, then all of these teams were incredibly 'lucky' as well.

    You could say Memphis was lucky that the Clippers were willing to salary dump Z-Bo and they were lucky that he finally got his head on straight after all these years. You could say the Grizz were lucky that that the Celtics financial commitments prevented them from re-signing Tony Allen a few summers ago. The Pacers were lucky that BC was desperate to land Jermaine O'Neal and was willing to give them Hibbert to do so. They were lucky that David West wanted to sign with them at the same time they had cap space available. The Hawks were lucky that Prokhorov wanted to make a big splash for his arrival in Brooklyn and was willing to eat Joe Johnson's salary. The list goes on.

    Drafting in the lottery isn't the blindfolded swipes in the dark compared to other forms of team building that some make it out be.

    You are changing the conversation/debate/argument with the bold.

    The underlined is what most people are saying. Until now it appeared you were not acknowledging this.

    The larger font is a fair point. If you think the current assets on the team cannot yield better fitting pieces to puzzle, then you have a point. Personally, I think there are some good pieces to work with (Lowry, Gay, Amir, JV, Ross, Fields). What can other assets yield to compliment those?

    But for the record, I am up for anything (tinker, blow it up) as long as the current path is aborted as soon as possible and whoever is making the decisions has enough patience to see the plan through to completion. Colangelo went half-assed in an attempt to save his own ass and that is what led us to where the Raptosr are today.
    Well obviously I'm not just blindly advocating for a tank for something to do. If I thought the team was close to competing or had the assets available to get there, I'd want to stay the course too. I just don't see it though. Hence why I don't see the value in waiting two more years just to come to a conclusion that seems very likely right now. You're just going to chew up years of JV in his prime and lose all the opportunity costs in the meantime.

  6. #246
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    Just because something involves variables beyond your control does not mean it's "luck" when it works out. If that was the case, any successful move in the NBA (drafts, trades, free agency) requires a great deal of luck and the argument kind of falls in on itself. You create a plan, you put yourself in the best possible position to pull it off and then you make the best possible decisions within that plan to be successful.

    And beyond that, this isn't even a hypothetical draft we're talking about. We know what the 2014 draft looks like and it's loaded with difference makers. You can't use the "you never know what type of draft year it will be" mantra in this case.



    You sign your "not quite all star" players to non cap-killing contracts and continue building. There's nothing wrong with having guys like Rudy Gay on your roster - paying them nearly a third of the cap is what's criminal. If someone is too injury prone or a bust then you let them go, although I want to re-iterate that swinging and missing in the top five happens a lot less than getting a player that ranks somewhere between very good and great.



    I still think you're misusing the term luck. If your definition is that it requires variables out of your control falling in your direction, then all of these teams were incredibly 'lucky' as well.

    You could say Memphis was lucky that the Clippers were willing to salary dump Z-Bo and they were lucky that he finally got his head on straight after all these years. You could say the Grizz were lucky that that the Celtics financial commitments prevented them from re-signing Tony Allen a few summers ago. The Pacers were lucky that BC was desperate to land Jermaine O'Neal and was willing to give them Hibbert to do so. They were lucky that David West wanted to sign with them at the same time they had cap space available. The Hawks were lucky that Prokhorov wanted to make a big splash for his arrival in Brooklyn and was willing to eat Joe Johnson's salary. The list goes on.

    Drafting in the lottery isn't the blindfolded swipes in the dark compared to other forms of team building that some make it out be.



    Well obviously I'm not just blindly advocating for a tank for something to do. If I thought the team was close to competing or had the assets available to get there, I'd want to stay the course too. I just don't see it though. Hence why I don't see the value in waiting two more years just to come to a conclusion that seems very likely right now. You're just going to chew up years of JV in his prime and lose all the opportunity costs in the meantime.

    First bold: I agree but you left out, "... and you hope the variables you cannot control line up in your favour."

    Second bold: That is when you enter 7/11 territory and it defeated the whole purpose of tanking.

    Third bold: Absolutely. Call it what you want, luck or whatever, but even with the greatest laid plans, other factors outside a teams control have to line up to provide opportunities no matter which route they go towards building.

    Fourth bold: The list goes on. But what you highlighted in all those situations is teams who became contenders (or at the very least playoff teams) in ways other than tanking. That is the whole point is it not?

    Fifth bold: That depends on what happens in the next few months. As I said, I would be fine with blowing it up but it is not going to guarantee anything. The Raptors do have talent right now. The problem is some of the talent is redundant and some of the talent is not being maximized through coaching decisions. With good management the Raptors have more than one option to compete moving forward. Blowing it up is only going to guarantee 3 years of losing. Who knows what can happen with strategic trades, amnesty, draft picks, or free agency.
    "You donít know the Bruno Caboclo......"
    Bruno Caboclo

  7. #247
    Raptors Republic Rookie RAPTORNATION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    26
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    If we want more than a shot at wiggins then we have to do more than just tank. We need to trade for unprotected draft picks

  8. #248
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Trade what? The young guys they've recently accumulated in the lottery?

  9. #249
    Raptors Republic Rookie LateBoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    We don't have to tank,
    just revamp the scouting team.

  10. #250
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Apollo wrote: View Post
    Trade what? The young guys they've recently accumulated in the lottery?
    Like Ed Davis?

  11. #251
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    It's easy. In nba 2k I regularly used to have like 6 of the top 10 picks in the draft.

  12. #252
    Raptors Republic Superstar Puffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,783
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote LateBoomer wrote: View Post
    We don't have to tank,
    just revamp the scouting team.
    I often wondered about this. Is it known throughout the league who the best scouts are? How much do they make? What about throwing $1 million per at half a dozen of them. It doesn't affect the cap but sure could affect the teams future. It can't be as simple as that or everyone would be trying to do it. But the whole scouting thing is a mystery to me.

  13. #253
    Raptors Republic Superstar planetmars's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,679
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Puffer wrote: View Post
    I often wondered about this. Is it known throughout the league who the best scouts are? How much do they make? What about throwing $1 million per at half a dozen of them. It doesn't affect the cap but sure could affect the teams future. It can't be as simple as that or everyone would be trying to do it. But the whole scouting thing is a mystery to me.
    You could end up with too many cooks in the kitchen. One scout may have a louder voice then another as well, and so if they are arguing over who is better, the one with the louder voice could win even if it was a bad decision. In the end the GM has to have a relationship with the scout so that they can respect what they are saying.

    Throwing money at many scouts I don't think will help much. It's like a coach have 20 assistants. Just need 3 or 4 guys that you trust, don't need an army.

  14. #254
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    793
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    My understanding is NBA scouts generally earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Spending $1,000,000 a year per scout is foolish in my opinion and will affect the team's profitability.

  15. #255
    Raptors Republic Rookie LateBoomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    40
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    l hope the new GM addresses this.
    Tanking is very risky with no guaranteed rewards, but a team can always benefit from very good scouts.

  16. #256
    Raptors Republic Superstar isaacthompson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Oakville
    Posts
    3,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    My understanding is NBA scouts generally earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Spending $1,000,000 a year per scout is foolish in my opinion and will affect the team's profitability.
    Does scout salary affect the cap? I'm not sure.

    I agree that 1 mil is a massive number, but with new ownership, I think it could fit in without any massive criticisms.
    Twitter - @thekid_it

  17. #257
    Raptors Republic Superstar Puffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    2,783
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Hugmenot wrote: View Post
    My understanding is NBA scouts generally earn between $100,000 and $200,000 a year. Spending $1,000,000 a year per scout is foolish in my opinion and will affect the team's profitability.
    The point is to only pay the big bucks to those scouts who have an outstanding record of success at identifying the good players. Most teams throw a lot more than 2-3 million a year on wasted picks, bad trades etc. If a team could increase their success rate on judging and evaluating players be even 30%, and extra 2 million a year would be nothing. You could wind up drafting guys not simply because they are a good fit on your team, but because they can become valuable trade chips so you can get those guys you need on your roster, with your coach and your style of play.

  18. #258
    Administrator Apollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    12,377
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Only players salaries affect the salary cap.

  19. #259
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote LateBoomer wrote: View Post
    l hope the new GM addresses this.
    Tanking is very risky with no guaranteed rewards, but a team can always benefit from very good scouts.
    That statement can be used towards any and every form of team building though.

  20. #260
    Raptors Republic Icon mcHAPPY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    20,645
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Craiger wrote: View Post
    That statement can be used towards any and every form of team building though.
    I think that is the point though.

    Many describe tanking as can't miss route to obtaining franchise talent and becoming a contender. OKC is most definitely the exception and not the norm.

    It is not a guarantee to anything except a lot of losing in the short term.

    Specific to the Raptors they are in a position to go in multiple directions and each have their own risks and rewards but nothing is guaranteed as you say.

Page 13 of 47 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •