Trade Down?
by pinkycheal on May 4, 2009 2:13 PM PDT
54 comments
Was looking at some very early mock drafts today, and as much as I hate to read paragraph after paragraph about possible offseason moves with so many things still yet to happen (draft order, opt outs, etc), I wanted to post it right here on the board right now that, with the odds of us moving up being so bad, and such a horrible drop off in talent after the top 2 picks, this could be a great chance to use a bad contract (see: C.Magg or J.Craw) to actually move DOWN in the draft.
If the team stamps their intent by broadcasting to the world that they need a new pg, couldnt they use logjam they have at the wing to actually move down (see: Detroit, Portland) to a team that is looking for someone in the Guard department or a bigger body down low. I see:
Maggs, Wright and the 7 going to Detriot for
#14 and Prince
Warriors take a Flynn or Patty Mills to run the point
Its not the ONLY move (still creates a jam at shooting with a guy like Jackson still looking for his final position), but it starts to help make things make sense. AGAIN, if Crawford is still around, this still makes a mess, but its a good start. I just dont think the talent diffference is THAT much where Jennings or Lawson over Flynn or Mills makes THAT much sense, especially if there is about a 5% chance any guy outside of Rubio would actually start come next October anyway.
Anyway, thanks for listening. Stay classy GSOM
This FanPost is a submission from a member of the mighty Golden State of Mind community. While we're all here to throw up that W, these words do not necessarily reflect the views of the GSoM Crew. Still, chances are the preceding post is Unstoppable Baby!
0 recs |
54 comments
Email
Print
Comments
if
we can get rid of a bad contract i wouldnt mind trading down from 7 since this lottery sucks.
by saintdee on May 4, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We’re going to win the second pick in the lottery, though!
This is our year!
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 4, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem is...
that we aren’t the only ones who see this draft as two deep with a bunch of “meh” players from 7-15. Will there be a trade partner out there that really sees value in moving up to #7 while taking back a bad contract? I doubt it.
They would have to be targeting a specific player that they really liked at 7 (say, if Jennings slides) and be in the market for overpaid instant offense (Maggs). I doubt that team is out there, but I’d obviously be pretty happy if we dumped Maggs and #7 for a better player.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 4, 2009 3:46 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
I think you're overvaluing Prince
He’s not good offensively (he doesn’t “take anything off the table”, but he doesn’t bring that much to it, and we already have a few of those guys), he’s only 4 months younger than Maggette, he’s played in 650 games to Maggette’s 652 (including playoffs), and when you count minutes on the floor, Prince has played ~21K and Maggette only 19K.
Yes, Prince hasn’t had any injury problems and should play longer, but you’ll have to decide whether or not to extend before his contract ends in 2010, and he’ll likely want a longer contract (just like everyone else), which would have him signed at least as long as Maggette currently is, and given his age and court time, could easily turn into a major liability down the road. He doesn’t turn us into a contender. He isn’t that much of a better player than Maggette (yes, he’s better, but would he make the difference between 8 seed and 4 seed? No, maybe 8 seed and 7 seed. Woohoo!). Meanwhile giving up BWright and a lottery pick for a non-lottery pick is way too much. It’s a move that seriously compromises our future without significant benefit for the present.
In summary, Prince isn’t that much better than Maggette, isn’t much younger, has played more NBA minutes and played 4 years in college to Maggette’s 1 year in college, and in the proposed trade, we’d have to give away two prospects for one that would be inferior to both prospects we’re giving up. No thank you. Maybe if it was straight up… or maybe if we could hold back BWright.
Does Detroit do this? Only if they’re getting prospects and they like those prospects.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 5, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
they might be smart in trading prince
his value is perceived at a high. And you could be right, he may be on decline. I still always think of him as a couple years ago when he was sensational. you know who could use him is lakers or san antonio. Theyd be top 2 buyers. San antonio doesnt have much to trade unless detroit really values the couple overseas rights they hold….. but it wouldnt surpirse me to see a sign and trade between odom and prince
by tafkasam on May 5, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
I think you’re overvaluing Prince
I actually didn’t comment on Prince. I was just speaking generally.
I didn’t think the Detroit trade was realistic because it doesn’t seem to fit in with what they are trying to do (cut salary, and rebuild). I don’t think Maggs is on their radar at all.
I might quibble with some of your analysis, but I basically agree with what you said. I don’t really think that trade works that well for either team.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 5, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If there's a player that slips to #7 that they're interested in
And they’re looking 2-3 years down the line, they’ll get something out of moving Prince. I’m not saying that this trade would be on anybody’s radar, but if they really like Thabeet and he slips to #7, they could theoretically move up to get him and figure they can trade Maggette in 2 or 3 years when he’s an expiring or “almost expiring”.
I actually didn’t comment on Prince.
Well, not directly, but if you’re evaluating the trade from a value standpoint, you’re inherently including all value coming and and going out on both sides.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 5, 2009 7:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't evaluate that trade...
I was only talking about the general idea of trading down. Read what I wrote again.
If you really want to argue though I could probably come up with something. =P
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 5, 2009 7:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you really want to argue though I could probably come up with something. =P
No. My reasoning is infallible, just like the Pope.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 6:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well we shoud do that exept maby try for stuckey
i really like stuckey and we want a PG
how about like wright and marco and davidson for stuckey and amir johnson
and get rid of maggette some other way
by gswfan1 on May 4, 2009 3:51 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
lol why would the pistons do that
Gerald Madkins
by gorillas on May 4, 2009 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
thats like giving up Monta and Wright
they would never do that
and Im not comparing Stuckey to Monta,Im saying thats what Stuckey means to them.
We Believe
by RunNdGun on May 4, 2009 4:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you want Wright and Marco
for the main reason that Detroit traded Chauncey Billups?
by ZaMzAm FiRe on May 4, 2009 4:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
One has to assume that Maggs is untradeable ...
… except to a team who thinks he puts them into title contention, and even then, maybe not for another year (assuming the economic situation stabilizes).
Right now, I think the ability to buy their way out of bad contracts by jettisoning talent is basically nonexistent.
by Ronaldinho on May 4, 2009 5:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Lets start a "where could Maggs go?" Conversation
Ive got a few teams….
#1: Detroit
#2: Utah
#3: San Antonio
Just throwing a few teams out there that could use a one-tracked guy on the offensive end to help out a superstar
Truth is guys Maggs was actually decent as a 6th man and Im not too sad if he is still on the team. I just think he is a tradable asset at a log jam position. There is a second conversation about Craw all together, but I just think this is a good start.
by pinkycheal on May 5, 2009 6:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Spurs
I keep having this recurring vision of Maggette winning a title in San Antonio. I can’t really imagine a better fit for him. Given how much he slows down the game and makes it almost unwatchable, he’d be a perfect compliment to Tim Duncan.
Sittin in my scraper watchin Oakland goin wild, ta-dow!
by Supafishal on May 5, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
the only problem....
the only contracts san antonio have that match up reasonably are ginobili and parker. Forgive my skeptisim.
otherwise theyd have to give like 4 or 5 role players 4 maggettes contract. I dont think eitherwise wants to do bowen, finley, bonner, mason 4 maggette
by tafkasam on May 5, 2009 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great point...
Maggs cant go to a franchise thats too smart to get into BAD contracts! Ironic that they have no bad contracts to get off the boards.
This brings up a larger point that good franchises never trade with bad franchises, unless its for a talent that is way out of that teams league (see: Pau Gasol). In the takes-a-bad-contract-to-get-a-bad-contract world, we can only make so many moves with the Pacers and the Knicks before both sides run out of available talent.
by pinkycheal on May 5, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Detroit appears to have entered rebuilding mode. The Billups/Iverson trade worked out just about exactly as people should have expected it to for both teams. Detroit lost more games, but will free up cap room with Iverson’s deal expiring. Generally, when teams surrender wins for a chance to clear salary, they don’t rebuild by trading for guys like Maggette.
by jae on May 5, 2009 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They are 25 mil under the cap. ITll be interested to see what direction they head. It wouldnt completely surprise me to see them try and attain tmac too….. then they can be big players in 2010.
by tafkasam on May 5, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
trading down
is far more rare in the NBA than the NFL … not to mention olympicmike nailed it above, finding the right partner in this draft is going to be very difficult …
by hardcore on May 4, 2009 9:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
you're right
only if we had 1 or 2 pick could we really trade down because most teams want rubio and griffin. The only other option is if some1 is extremely high on thabeet. I could see a team like detroit or san antonio wanting him. But its questionable they’d give. The most ocmmon players projected around #7 are demar derozen, tyreke evans and brandon jennings…. all have some potential but its questionable what teams will give up for them.
Best case trades i could see is if a team like DALLAS or someone covetted one and theyd go josh howard + there pick for our pick + mags….. thatd make us marginally better i suppose but who knows if we’d be giving up a player in 2-3 years who is quality for a draft pick around 20 who will inevitably be a role player.
by tafkasam on May 5, 2009 10:01 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
might be a reach
but this might be a good fit for us: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/DeJuan-Blair-5049/
by hardcore on May 5, 2009 5:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Short, strong PF who rebounds real well at the college level. Didn’t we draft him last year?
by jae on May 5, 2009 5:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ya, and the year before ...
compared to Lasme, I’d say Blair has him beat by quite a ways, compared to Hendrix I’d say Blair beats him too, less considerably but Blair has been more effective offensively in comparison – and I’m disproportionately impacted by how Blair did late in the season, and IIRC specifically in his head-to-head against Thabeet … thought you (of all of us) would like a long-armed, beefy rebounder to backup our frontline ;-) … you’ve given AR more respect lately, maybe he’ll be “that” guy but I’m still skeptical that we have enough beef to compete consistently … bpa is easy to say, but we’ll never know who that is for sure – Blair seems as safe a pick as any, albeit not a very exciting one …
by hardcore on May 5, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blair
If the Warriors draft him, could Nellie make it easier on him and cut him before he moves to the west coast? He didn’t afford Lasme or Hendrix that courtesy, but perhaps he’s mellowing and will be a bit kinder to Blair. With age comes wisdom. Nellie might realize that it’s easier to cut him during the draft telecast, right after Stern hands him the hat, but before he looks for a new crib in Oakland given that the likelihood that he’d play a guy like Blair stands at about seventeen quintillion to one against. (Those odds are a rough approximation. It might not be that likely.)
by jae on May 5, 2009 9:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ironic?
Does it strike you as a bit ironic that the weaknesses in Randolph’s game (thinks he is a point forward sharpshooter) is probably the reason that he gets on the court enough to show off his strengths (rebounding, shot blocking)?
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 5, 2009 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s very ironic. And we’re also very lucky too.
It’s a darn good thing that rebounding and shot-blocking comes so naturally to Randolph, because he won’t be getting any more guidance from good ol’ Nellie in those departments.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on May 5, 2009 10:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He didn’t afford Lasme or Hendrix that courtesy, but perhaps he’s mellowing and will be a bit kinder to Blair.
If Lasme or Hendrix deserved that courtesy, don’t you think either would be on an NBA roster at this point? Hendrix is in the D-League and still has problems fouling people. Lasme got playing time for the Heat last year when they were actively trying to lose. The team thought putting him on the floor was the best way to ensure a loss. Lasme is now playing in Euroleague, getting 25MPG, scoring 10.6PPG on 51% shooting, with 6.6 rebounds, 1.5 blocks, and 2.7 turnovers – Same turnover rate as Stephen Jackson.
http://www.euroleague.net/competition/teams/showteamstats?clubcode=par
At this point, it might be too early to say Hendrix is done as he did put up 14&11 this last year, but if he hasn’t been called up by ANYBODY, then it’s not only Nellie that doesn’t think he’s ready for the NBA.
The first thing that would separate Blair is a guaranteed contract (though that didn’t help PoB… wait a sec, why didn’t you include him in your list above? Maybe he’s the best supporting evidence that Nellie might know what he’s doing when not playing foul prone young big men). The rest would be skill, drive, etc. Face it, Lasme was a long shot to make the team to begin with, and Hendrix still has problems fouling people.
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 6:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Lasme or Hendrix deserved that courtesy, don’t you think either would be on an NBA roster at this point?
I don’t think you are responding to what I actually wrote. I didn’t suggest that either belonged on a roster or that Nellie should have played them. I was saying that Nellie wouldn’t play them (ok, Lasme got 3 seconds of court time). Similarly, if drafted I have my doubts about him ever really going for a guy like Blair.
by jae on May 6, 2009 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
My point was
Nellie didn’t play them because they’re not that good. Is Blair good? Early returns say yes, right? Nellie has played effective players that give his team the best chance of winning in the past.
I’m trying to figure out why you think Blair would get no PT on the Warriors. Either:
1. You think all rookies will get no PT under Nelson (proven to be untrue: Webber, the Anthonys)
2. You think that Nellie doesn’t play bigs who aren’t very good (proven to be true: PoB, Lasme, Hendrix)
3. You think Rowell will draft a guy without consulting Nellie and that Nellie will decide not to play him because the guy doesn’t fit into his game plan and/or to spite Rowell (possible, but unlikely and we’ll never know the real truth).
We definitely don’t know enough about Blair to relegate him to the “bigs who aren’t very good” category yet, so you’re saying that if Blair is drafted, it’s an example of Case 3?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really have a feel for whether or not Blair is good, if he’s significantly better than Hendrix or Lasme. The description of what he does well is similar to what they did well.
I do know that he’s reputed to be a powerful rebounder but not offensively versatile short for an interior player forward. Nellie really does like to use guys with offensive versatility and I don’t think Blair fits that mold. In that sense, he’s similar to Lasme and Hendrix, two guys who many people said were “exactly what this team needs” as our “own Millsap” sort of player. And that’s not the sort of player Nellie seems to fall in love with.
And that was the original point I guess I failed to make. As much as I do not think Nellie has as strict a “system” as some make it out to be, as much as I think his ‘system’ is just to try to maximize what he’s got, I don’t think he tries to maximize in ways that include using a bullish brute enforcer down low often enough to make this a good home for Blair, despite the cries that ‘we need an enforcer’ to get tough in the post that get shouted here rather often. So thiat would be a case #4: some guys just aren’t a good match for what Nellie tries to do.
Mostly, I don’t think that there’s much chance the Warriors will take him, so it’s moot.
But is the front office mess cleared up enough such that we could draft a guy who Nellie really didn’t want? I dunno. I’d like to believe that they know enough to fix that mess before the draft. I’d like to believe in lots of things, but I find myself drawn to evidence that suggests otherwise.
by jae on May 6, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree that if forced to have Blair on the roster, he wouldn't likely play much
But Case #4 results in Blair not getting drafted, otherwise it would be a Case #3.
I’m not disputing it, but what evidence suggests that management would be dumb enough to draft a guy knowing he would not see playing time until Nellie left or was fired? If they did that, should we assume they’re getting ready to fire Nellie?
"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK
by Dubs fan in Boston on May 6, 2009 12:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
two req's for the bigs
which have been hard to answer in recent picks until they’re put in real competition (i.e., nba, olympics, elite international play)—can they defend the position, and can they do enough on offense to require their defender to stay on them? Just rebounding and muscle isn’t enough for Nelson, and some might disagree with that, but to me his requirements are legit. A round 2 pick is probably o.k. for someone like Blair, whom I doubt you can be really sure he’ll make the grade until really tested.
by the.monk on May 6, 2009 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AND the year before that...
that time he wasn’t quite as good of a rebounder but he was from the same school.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 6, 2009 5:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
you call that trading down?
I want rubio not tayshaun. lol
by warriorfan4life on May 4, 2009 10:28 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
better trade idea
Buike, Wright, Beli and 09 1st rd for David West…..Hornets are trying to shed some cap space
by BringTheEnergy on May 5, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's take a look at the history of the #7 pick..
Eric Gordon
Corey Brewer
Foye
Villanueva
Deng
Hinrich
Nene
Eddie Griffin (RIP)
Mihm
Rip Hamilton
With the exception of Griffin and Mihm, those are all pretty good players and solid NBA starters. Chances are we can get a pretty good player with #7.
We do have a personnel logjam at some positions, mainly stemming from veterans that expect minutes and young guys who we want to gives minutes to. But the truth is we don’t have any logjams of proven talent.
The #7 pick could net us a very good player, and we shouldn’t take that foregranted. It shouldn’t just be thrown in just to get rid of our favorite current GSW scapegoat.
You remember what people were saying about last year’s draft class? It turned out to be one of the deepest and talent-filled. “Well this year’s draft class just isn’t that deep” is just a phrase thrown around in the last couple years because there aren’t any “super-star-potential, high-upside” high schoolers sprinkled around in the draft everywhere.
"We Deserve"
by YaHeard on May 5, 2009 10:46 PM PDT reply actions 2 recs
Good point...
"Well this year’s draft class just isn’t that deep" is just a phrase thrown around in the last couple years because there aren’t any "super-star-potential, high-upside" high schoolers sprinkled around in the draft everywhere.
That’s really true. I think that the unproven “upside” picks tend to make a draft feel much deeper than it really is despite the high fall-out rate of those type of players. Good observation.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on May 6, 2009 12:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
is corey brewer still in minnesota?
I know he had the injury problems but he showed some potential (to be trevor ariza)
by tafkasam on May 7, 2009 12:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
missed most of the year with after blowing out his knee. i don’t know if i like him as a player. he seems like a pretty mediocre guy, but wolves fans are really excited about him. he’s an alright defender. he’s got length, but no strength, so he can really only guard 1s and 2s. on the plus side, if you keep as a shooting guard, he rebounds his position fairly well.
trevor ariza is the wrong comparison. ariza is a much better athlete and scorer than brewer will ever be and can use that athleticism to defend in ways that brewer can’t. i look at brewer as a hustle guy on the perimeter, which is kind of useful, but he probably won’t ever be useful enough to be a starter.
heart of a champion, will of the warrior.
by cap'n hack on May 7, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These are the moves we need to make this off-season
1. Get rid of Maggs, Crawford period. We should be able to get back a combination mediocre overpaid PFs, Cs or specialists with bad contracts(hopefully expiring). Maggs is playing one-on-one way to much literally killing this teams chemistry on offense. On defense he is just too weaksause. If I have to watch another Maggs superflop on defense… its just that bad.
Crawford – Everyone thinks Monta defense is bad, Crawford defense does not exist, he should change his name to Crawfor, because its obviouse d is not part of his name. He had some good games this season, and he can run a team at times, but those minutes could be used by other players.
2. Draft a tall SF who can run the floor and defend: I like Demar Derozan, but there a couple in this draft.
Our lineup:
PG – Monta
SG – S.Jackson
SF – Derozan
PF – Randolph
C – Biens
backup:
PG – CJ / Beli
SG – Morrow, Beli
SF – Booki
PF – Wright/ someone we get from trade above
C – Turiaf
Ideally we can get Andre Miller in a sign-and-trade, Philly could take Crawfor.
by farid on May 6, 2009 12:29 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
no way derozan walks into our lineup. He’d get randolph treatment. That being said i’m not opposed to him at #7 at all…. he played in a stupid USC system. I think he might be 3rd best p layer in draft
by tafkasam on May 7, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suspect he might be the 3rd best player too, but I’m afraid I’m letting OJ Mayo affect my opinion way too much.
Thing A
by sam23 on May 7, 2009 6:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this year is
one of those years where it’s better to trade down and stockpile picks or get proven players.
Blazers+Blazersedge=Mind Blown
by TappedPotential on May 9, 2009 1:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Trading down means that someone else wants to trade up. Who do you realistically think that is?
by jae on May 9, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair, it’s kind of hard to know before the draft positions are set, teams do all their pre-draft workouts and research, and without people inside the front offices of every team in the NBA.
I have no idea whether teams want to move up or not; I would tend to agree with you that teams probably won’t, but you never know when a GM gets enamored with someone and wants to move up a few slots.
Besides, the Warriors are going to have the first pick, so there are lots of GMs who will be interested in Blake Griffin. :)
by markdash on May 9, 2009 9:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There are always some draft day swaps. I don’t have any inside on the mechanization of the moves, but many have the appearance of "for need" trades that happen on draft day as the picks unfold. It’s unlike the NFL where it’s commonplace, where later round picks still have a good shot of making the team and playing at least some role. Trades don’t seem to happen to change draft order long before the actual draft, although I suspect there’s a whole lot of "if so and so is available, we’d like you to consider taking him and trading him to us and we’ll give you that."
Moving up from even #3 to the top spot is usually very expensive. Moving up a draft pick from 5 to 4 may just be a matter of $$$, as it was when we took Carter and swapped for Jamison. What sort of price tag does a (just for sake of argument) 14 to 7 jump actually involve? In 2001, Houston swapped #9 (Przybilla) for #15 (Collier) and a future 1st (which I believe was protected, but I am not certain). That seems like the sort of thing that happens. I didn’t find easy references to cases where teams were able to get a real productive rotation player while trading down. I suspect that’s because the cap makes it tough to deal players straight for picks.
Number 7 is high enough, even in what the ‘experts’ seem to think is a thin draft, to think it might net us a useful player. Since weren’t not really working on a short window of immediate need to try for a championship, trading down for what is, in all likelihood, a player with less of a chance of ever actually helping doesn’t seem all that promising an idea. This of course, is in general and the specifics of any deal are what really matters.
by jae on May 10, 2009 11:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and with the first pick, the goldent state warriors select
blake griffin. 20 minutes later . The warriors have traded blake griffin for tyreke evans and mike conley!
by tafkasam on May 12, 2009 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
unless thabeet falls to 7, lthen theres some teams i bet who r high on him, or possibly someone is enamored by derozans potential…. but i dont see people trading up for the current players projected at 7 like tyreke evans, brandon jennings etc
by tafkasam on May 12, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
