It is currently Thu Apr 18, 2024 2:42 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 6:57 pm
Posts: 88927
Location: To the left of my post
IMU wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Anthony signs with the Bulls if Phil doesn't throw an extra 40 mil at him.


Phil has been very good to Chicago. Thanks Phil.
Moore chose to leave as a free agent though. You win some and you lose some.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
IMU wrote:
long time guy wrote:
Anthony signs with the Bulls if Phil doesn't throw an extra 40 mil at him.


Phil has been very good to Chicago. Thanks Phil.



So says the guy that clamored for Lance instead.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
Rondo Calling out Butler and Wade on their bullshit was enough for me. He also has done an excellent job of finding the shooters in that offense the past couple of games. They are getting looks that they haven't gotten all season. They are missing wide open looks but at least he is delivering the pass.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
But what you're saying is equally meaningless. "Top talent" doesn't usually become available. Before this year Golden State never attracted a top FA. The Knicks haven't for 20 years outside of Amare. Same with Celtics and Horford. Etc.


So if you admit that being a legacy franchise in a top three market is meaningless, does that mean I was in fact being objective during my earlier pessimistic posts? You said I wasn't being objective. :lol:

long time guy wrote:


How does signing either of those two kill long term hopes? Regardless of the motives they improved the team. ONce again if you are not going to trade Butler (which most on here don't) then you have to improve the team. There weren't many moves that could have been done last off season which would have made the Bulls instant contenders. It is asanine to constantly focus on that. The Bulls gave up nothing to acquire either and aside for a few draft slots what was really lost.

I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.

A shitty Butler complaining about his lack of supporting cast isn't something that i looked forward to.


I never said they killed long-term hopes - I said the signings weren't indicative of a long-term plan. What improvement is there? They were 42-40 last year and are on pace for the same record this year. That's not improvement - that's stagnation. Congratulations, if that's your thing, but I don't want stagnation - I want progress, even if incremental. There is no progress. I am not advocating for moves that make the Bulls "instant contenders," mainly because such moves are exceedingly rare to pull off. Realistically, I am advocating for, obviously, better drafting and smarter free agent signings, such as young pieces that you may be able to mold into something useful, or young vets that you can use in the present and then possibly trade for better assets in the future.

Quote:
I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.


I don't give a shit about Hoiberg - it's obvious to everyone that he's way in over his head. As I said, the signings don't make sense from a strategic point of view. From your scout's angle, it might make sense because Rondo jibes really well with the second unit, and Wade does a lot of nice weak side stuff. For me, I say who gives a shit - the team is .500, is going nowhere, and trading Rondo/Wade isn't going to get you anything. So they're dead weight.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 pm
Posts: 11735
pizza_Place: Angelo's Pizza in Downers Grove
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 7:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 10:15 am
Posts: 27582
pizza_Place: nick n vito's
It goes to show just how lousy Brooks was, he had KD, Russ, Harden and Ibaka and couldn't win dick..smh.

_________________
The Original Kid Cairo wrote:
Laurence Holmes is a fucking weirdo, a nerd in denial, and a wannabe. Not a very good radio host either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Wed Feb 08, 2017 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
But what you're saying is equally meaningless. "Top talent" doesn't usually become available. Before this year Golden State never attracted a top FA. The Knicks haven't for 20 years outside of Amare. Same with Celtics and Horford. Etc.


So if you admit that being a legacy franchise in a top three market is meaningless, does that mean I was in fact being objective during my earlier pessimistic posts? You said I wasn't being objective. :lol:

long time guy wrote:


How does signing either of those two kill long term hopes? Regardless of the motives they improved the team. ONce again if you are not going to trade Butler (which most on here don't) then you have to improve the team. There weren't many moves that could have been done last off season which would have made the Bulls instant contenders. It is asanine to constantly focus on that. The Bulls gave up nothing to acquire either and aside for a few draft slots what was really lost.

I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.

A shitty Butler complaining about his lack of supporting cast isn't something that i looked forward to.


I never said they killed long-term hopes - I said the signings weren't indicative of a long-term plan. What improvement is there? They were 42-40 last year and are on pace for the same record this year. That's not improvement - that's stagnation. Congratulations, if that's your thing, but I don't want stagnation - I want progress, even if incremental. There is no progress. I am not advocating for moves that make the Bulls "instant contenders," mainly because such moves are exceedingly rare to pull off. Realistically, I am advocating for, obviously, better drafting and smarter free agent signings, such as young pieces that you may be able to mold into something useful, or young vets that you can use in the present and then possibly trade for better assets in the future.

Quote:
I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.


I don't give a shit about Hoiberg - it's obvious to everyone that he's way in over his head. As I said, the signings don't make sense from a strategic point of view. From your scout's angle, it might make sense because Rondo jibes really well with the second unit, and Wade does a lot of nice weak side stuff. For me, I say who gives a shit - the team is .500, is going nowhere, and trading Rondo/Wade isn't going to get you anything. So they're dead weight.



Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?

I will take Wade and Rondo over Calderón and Dunleavy anyday. Had they kept the team as it stood you would be no doubt complaining about that. You can only acquire what's available. After Durant there wasn't much left in free agency. I will take a 42 win team over a 25 win team anyday.


If they keep Butler then you have to put something around him. Calderón and Dunleavy couldn't be that.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
But what you're saying is equally meaningless. "Top talent" doesn't usually become available. Before this year Golden State never attracted a top FA. The Knicks haven't for 20 years outside of Amare. Same with Celtics and Horford. Etc.


So if you admit that being a legacy franchise in a top three market is meaningless, does that mean I was in fact being objective during my earlier pessimistic posts? You said I wasn't being objective. :lol:

long time guy wrote:


How does signing either of those two kill long term hopes? Regardless of the motives they improved the team. ONce again if you are not going to trade Butler (which most on here don't) then you have to improve the team. There weren't many moves that could have been done last off season which would have made the Bulls instant contenders. It is asanine to constantly focus on that. The Bulls gave up nothing to acquire either and aside for a few draft slots what was really lost.

I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.

A shitty Butler complaining about his lack of supporting cast isn't something that i looked forward to.


I never said they killed long-term hopes - I said the signings weren't indicative of a long-term plan. What improvement is there? They were 42-40 last year and are on pace for the same record this year. That's not improvement - that's stagnation. Congratulations, if that's your thing, but I don't want stagnation - I want progress, even if incremental. There is no progress. I am not advocating for moves that make the Bulls "instant contenders," mainly because such moves are exceedingly rare to pull off. Realistically, I am advocating for, obviously, better drafting and smarter free agent signings, such as young pieces that you may be able to mold into something useful, or young vets that you can use in the present and then possibly trade for better assets in the future.

Quote:
I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.


I don't give a shit about Hoiberg - it's obvious to everyone that he's way in over his head. As I said, the signings don't make sense from a strategic point of view. From your scout's angle, it might make sense because Rondo jibes really well with the second unit, and Wade does a lot of nice weak side stuff. For me, I say who gives a shit - the team is .500, is going nowhere, and trading Rondo/Wade isn't going to get you anything. So they're dead weight.



Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?

I will take Wade and Rondo over Calderón and Dunleavy anyday. Had they kept the team as it stood you would be no doubt complaining about that. You can only acquire what's available. After Durant there wasn't much left in free agency. I will take a 42 win team over a 25 win team anyday.


If they keep Butler then you have to put something around him. Calderón and Dunleavy couldn't be that.


Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2017 11:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?



Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo

Beal, Batum, and Whiteside weren't leaving their teams, and lets not be silly with those other names. If they signed Parsons or Barnes to a max deal, you and I would've been pissed and rightfully so. Gordon would've been an ok option, but hes not having a good year either. Afflalo is 31 years old so it doesn't make sense to be against Rondo and Wade because of their age but want him instead.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 1:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
But what you're saying is equally meaningless. "Top talent" doesn't usually become available. Before this year Golden State never attracted a top FA. The Knicks haven't for 20 years outside of Amare. Same with Celtics and Horford. Etc.


So if you admit that being a legacy franchise in a top three market is meaningless, does that mean I was in fact being objective during my earlier pessimistic posts? You said I wasn't being objective. :lol:

long time guy wrote:


How does signing either of those two kill long term hopes? Regardless of the motives they improved the team. ONce again if you are not going to trade Butler (which most on here don't) then you have to improve the team. There weren't many moves that could have been done last off season which would have made the Bulls instant contenders. It is asanine to constantly focus on that. The Bulls gave up nothing to acquire either and aside for a few draft slots what was really lost.

I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.

A shitty Butler complaining about his lack of supporting cast isn't something that i looked forward to.


I never said they killed long-term hopes - I said the signings weren't indicative of a long-term plan. What improvement is there? They were 42-40 last year and are on pace for the same record this year. That's not improvement - that's stagnation. Congratulations, if that's your thing, but I don't want stagnation - I want progress, even if incremental. There is no progress. I am not advocating for moves that make the Bulls "instant contenders," mainly because such moves are exceedingly rare to pull off. Realistically, I am advocating for, obviously, better drafting and smarter free agent signings, such as young pieces that you may be able to mold into something useful, or young vets that you can use in the present and then possibly trade for better assets in the future.

Quote:
I think that you would have preferred that they not sign them so that your Anti Hoiberg stance could have been further solidified.


I don't give a shit about Hoiberg - it's obvious to everyone that he's way in over his head. As I said, the signings don't make sense from a strategic point of view. From your scout's angle, it might make sense because Rondo jibes really well with the second unit, and Wade does a lot of nice weak side stuff. For me, I say who gives a shit - the team is .500, is going nowhere, and trading Rondo/Wade isn't going to get you anything. So they're dead weight.



Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?

I will take Wade and Rondo over Calderón and Dunleavy anyday. Had they kept the team as it stood you would be no doubt complaining about that. You can only acquire what's available. After Durant there wasn't much left in free agency. I will take a 42 win team over a 25 win team anyday.


If they keep Butler then you have to put something around him. Calderón and Dunleavy couldn't be that.


Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo


This is really laughable.
Affalo is washed up and I was once a big Affalo fan.

The oft injured Eric Gordon isn't a guy that you snatch up either. He isn't even a starter on a good team at this stage of the game.

Bradley Beal is another always injured guy and he was never going to leave Washington so why is his name on here?

Chandler Parsons isn't that good either and I'd rather sign Wade for the money (which Garpax did) less years too than Parsons.

Whiteside would have been a good choice but he wasn't leaving Miami because they could pay him the most money. He was signing with team that could pay him the most money. That was clear early on in the process. In addition was the fact that the Bulls had already dealt Rose (which everyone wanted) for a center.


Harrison Barnes is the only miss on here. They should have gone after him. He is the only one that makes sense in hindsight. He is also an Iowa native. Hoi berg and Forman are both familiar with him. He is the only one that should have been signed.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:50 pm
Posts: 16078
pizza_Place: Malnati's
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?



Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo

Beal, Batum, and Whiteside weren't leaving their teams, and lets not be silly with those other names. If they signed Parsons or Barnes to a max deal, you and I would've been pissed and rightfully so. Gordon would've been an ok option, but hes not having a good year either. Afflalo is 31 years old so it doesn't make sense to be against Rondo and Wade because of their age but want him instead.


I didn't know afflalo was that old but I wouldn't rule him out because of age - I'd rule him out for strategic purposes. Would signing afflalo or even Wade and Rondo make strategic sense? Yes at some point they might, but currently I can't conceive of a strategy which involves signing Wade and Rondo to a middling 42-40 team in need of youth, athleticism, and shot creation skills. Doesn't make sense.

Those other players may not have left their teams but why not take a shot? You're not going to get the Durants and Hardens of the world so why not try for the Beals and Whitesides. I think Parsons got a four year deal. To me that's attractive because it quickly becomes tradeable if you can flip him for something better. I'm not following Harrison Barnes that much but I know he's a 24 year old averaging 20 and 5 right now. Honest question: would he be that bad over here? I don't know. Certainly seems like more of an asset than Wade or Rondo.

long time guy wrote:

This is really laughable.
Affalo is washed up and I was once a big Affalo fan.

The oft injured Eric Gordon isn't a guy that you snatch up either. He isn't even a starter on a good team at this stage of the game.

Bradley Beal is another always injured guy and he was never going to leave Washington so why is his name on here?

Chandler Parsons isn't that good either and I'd rather sign Wade for the money (which Garpax did) less years too than Parsons.

Whiteside would have been a good choice but he wasn't leaving Miami because they could pay him the most money. He was signing with team that could pay him the most money. That was clear early on in the process. In addition was the fact that the Bulls had already dealt Rose (which everyone wanted) for a center.


Harrison Barnes is the only miss on here. They should have gone after him. He is the only one that makes sense in hindsight. He is also an Iowa native. Hoi berg and Forman are both familiar with him. He is the only one that should have been signed.


Like I say above it's about the accumulation of assets that can help your team or that can be used in deals to acquire more assets. Wade and Rondo have zero value. Eric Gordon for all his faults has more value. Nice trolling there with the Iowa connection between Hoiberg and Barnes.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:17 am
Posts: 72289
Location: Palatine
pizza_Place: Lou Malnatis
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?



Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo

Beal, Batum, and Whiteside weren't leaving their teams, and lets not be silly with those other names. If they signed Parsons or Barnes to a max deal, you and I would've been pissed and rightfully so. Gordon would've been an ok option, but hes not having a good year either. Afflalo is 31 years old so it doesn't make sense to be against Rondo and Wade because of their age but want him instead.


I didn't know afflalo was that old but I wouldn't rule him out because of age - I'd rule him out for strategic purposes. Would signing afflalo or even Wade and Rondo make strategic sense? Yes at some point they might, but currently I can't conceive of a strategy which involves signing Wade and Rondo to a middling 42-40 team in need of youth, athleticism, and shot creation skills. Doesn't make sense.

Those other players may not have left their teams but why not take a shot? You're not going to get the Durants and Hardens of the world so why not try for the Beals and Whitesides. I think Parsons got a four year deal. To me that's attractive because it quickly becomes tradeable if you can flip him for something better. I'm not following Harrison Barnes that much but I know he's a 24 year old averaging 20 and 5 right now. Honest question: would he be that bad over here? I don't know. Certainly seems like more of an asset than Wade or Rondo.


The reason for signing Wade was to put a competitive product out there this year and to get someone in here to help with recruiting the Durants and Westbrooks you want. Wade is a made guy in the NBA and it's reasonable to think that he would've helped with that. Problem now is this season is such a disaster I can't see him wanting to stick around or help recruit. :lol:

Jimmy Butler is having 10x better of a season than Barnes is, and you don't want him, so I don't know where you're going with that. I wouldn't want Barnes for that contract, even with how big the payrolls will explode over the next couple seasons.

Chandler Parsons contract would've set this franchise back 3+ years and been the worst signing since Ben Wallace. He's been an unmitigated disaster in Memphis, mainly due to injuries but even when he's played he's been awful. It would most definitely not be a tradeable asset.

I still dont know what you mean about why the Bulls didn't take their shot at Beal and Whiteside. There was no shot to take. They resigned with their teams. I guess they could have tried to pseudo-kidnap them like the Mavs did to DeAndre Jordan, but ultimately it wouldn't have made a difference.

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 2:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:10 am
Posts: 31948
veganfan21 wrote:
FavreFan wrote:
veganfan21 wrote:
long time guy wrote:


Which players could the Bulls have acquired last off season?



Beal
Whiteside
Parsons
Eric Gordon
Harrison Barnes
Batum
Afflalo

Beal, Batum, and Whiteside weren't leaving their teams, and lets not be silly with those other names. If they signed Parsons or Barnes to a max deal, you and I would've been pissed and rightfully so. Gordon would've been an ok option, but hes not having a good year either. Afflalo is 31 years old so it doesn't make sense to be against Rondo and Wade because of their age but want him instead.


I didn't know afflalo was that old but I wouldn't rule him out because of age - I'd rule him out for strategic purposes. Would signing afflalo or even Wade and Rondo make strategic sense? Yes at some point they might, but currently I can't conceive of a strategy which involves signing Wade and Rondo to a middling 42-40 team in need of youth, athleticism, and shot creation skills. Doesn't make sense.

Those other players may not have left their teams but why not take a shot? You're not going to get the Durants and Hardens of the world so why not try for the Beals and Whitesides. I think Parsons got a four year deal. To me that's attractive because it quickly becomes tradeable if you can flip him for something better. I'm not following Harrison Barnes that much but I know he's a 24 year old averaging 20 and 5 right now. Honest question: would he be that bad over here? I don't know. Certainly seems like more of an asset than Wade or Rondo.

long time guy wrote:

This is really laughable.
Affalo is washed up and I was once a big Affalo fan.

The oft injured Eric Gordon isn't a guy that you snatch up either. He isn't even a starter on a good team at this stage of the game.

Bradley Beal is another always injured guy and he was never going to leave Washington so why is his name on here?

Chandler Parsons isn't that good either and I'd rather sign Wade for the money (which Garpax did) less years too than Parsons.

Whiteside would have been a good choice but he wasn't leaving Miami because they could pay him the most money. He was signing with team that could pay him the most money. That was clear early on in the process. In addition was the fact that the Bulls had already dealt Rose (which everyone wanted) for a center.


Harrison Barnes is the only miss on here. They should have gone after him. He is the only one that makes sense in hindsight. He is also an Iowa native. Hoi berg and Forman are both familiar with him. He is the only one that should have been signed.


Like I say above it's about the accumulation of assets that can help your team or that can be used in deals to acquire more assets. Wade and Rondo have zero value. Eric Gordon for all his faults has more value. Nice trolling there with the Iowa connection between Hoiberg and Barnes.



Eric Gordon is about to be indicted for all of the NBA money that he has stolen over the past 3-4 years. Unless you need a safe cracker he had little value. I wouldn't have taken a chance on him. There wasn't much to be had last off season and GarPax would have been stupid (which they may be) to tie that amount of money up in guys that aren't really good. The only person of value that moved was Barnes and he wasn't an elite free agent. He was simply the best of a bad lot of free agents. You can't say that the Bulls could have acquired "this" or "that" guy even after he has decided to resign with his team. That is simply disingenuous.

_________________
The Hawk wrote:
This is going to reach a head pretty soon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SERGE Ibaka?
PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2017 3:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 4:46 pm
Posts: 20642
pizza_Place: Giordano's
Big Chicagoan wrote:
Image


Get the fuck outta here!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group