| 0 |
Subject: Ben Wallace gets C eligibility
Posted by: JCS
- Sustainer [20102934] Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 14:19
Ben Wallace is now available as a F in TSN Ultimate Hoops. If you believe ESPN split stats, he has started zero games at C this year. So how did he become a C all of a sudden? What's the policy behind this? This is a scandal. So fom now on I'm gonna have to wait until the last minute to make my trades in hope that Garnett gets C eligibility too? He started more games at C than Ben Wallace this year. |
| Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well. |
| 64 | ESB
ID: 373411610
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 19:17
|
Saw Dust -- very funny. LOL funny. Yes, we will be releasing Stallworld Candyland. It's our next product. How did you know?
|
| 65 | Pacers Rule
Donor
ID: 910311210
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 19:26
|
I'd like for someone to take credit for that last post. Absolutely hilarious.
I will say that also, TSN Ultimate Hoops is for 'show', Gmoney. They're a business and this is a money making operation, like it or not. This is not a news organization function. Sure, we have a reason to gripe because we paid money and some of us try very hard and this kind of thing sort of messes with the fairness and whatnot. But I'm with penn, it's not a decision I think was correct but it's not a game-ruining thing. I personally feel the "I" problem is way worse and too bad ESB or anyone from TSN has not addressed this. I like that TSN is interacting with its 'customers' in this thread. I wish there was a more formal and responsive feedback system to game issues. I guess some of us who have been around for a while know who to write and maybe they get answers. I guess for some of us newer patrons, we'll just have to bide our time and pay our dues....of perceived silence.
|
| 66 | Memphis Fan
ID: 1312316
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 19:29
|
The only game Ben will play as a Center is one that doesn't count.
.. Subjective rules. :<
|
| 67 | ESB
ID: 373411610
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 19:44
|
Can someone get me up to speed on the I issue? Point me to a thread? Or email me directly?
-ESB
|
| 68 | Blooki
ID: 4510211419
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 19:49
|
"I" Grievances Thread
Here you go Erik. Thanks for the support. Appreciate your time.
|
| 69 | Gmoney16
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 20:01
|
ESB - thanks for checking into the I. Also, I hope you understand that most of us support the changes. You can't bat 1.000, but we need our opportunity to express our opinions - Thanks for listening!
|
| 70 | FootWedge
ID: 4811572919
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 21:19
|
ESB - with all respect for the good job TSN has done. Doesn't it make sense to check with the users first. Especially the top users and get a little feedback first. As a systems programmer I have authority to make changes I feel are best but I've learned the hard way if I ignore what the users want everything goes to he!!. It was a good idea in theory but way out there in reality especially without advanced warning in a plan ahead stategy game.
|
| 71 | penngray
ID: 453492921
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 22:17
|
footwedge,
I do believe TSN had many,many request for this change. Through the TSN board and through email so with that in mind TSN was thinking about "the customer". Also you have to remember we are actually a minority, 1000s of teams are managed by people that dont even read this board or the TSN board.
This isnt saying TSN did the right thing based on opinions here they didnt (I dont care what they did). This really isnt a plan ahead strategy game either, trades are refreshed daily, you can trade daily. To be success planning is involved but it isnt a game based on planning in the strict sense. (Again, this is why this is all a non-event. ONE day is all it takes for people to make all the changes necessary (if they want) for the position change. There is no statistical or logical arguement that can prove to me that this has screwed up anyone's long term planning.
btw, I run a software consulting company and there is no way in hell I could go to my user base before I make software changes. I dont know of many companies that do.
|
| 72 | thinkinbig
ID: 290162421
Tue, Feb 03, 2004, 23:13
|
You know, here I agree with the majority here, and I have Wallace on all 3 of my teams.
But ya'll are missing one practical thing. I would like anyone to tell me how this decision helps me? The fact remains that he is facing a 2 in six (& the 2 are back-to-back AWAY games)
I was planning on trading out of Wallace X 3 tonite, but I'll stick around on this board for a while waiting for ANYBODY's analysis on why he is the best or even second best alternative at C.
|
| 73 | thinkinbig
ID: 290162421
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 00:41
|
Team #1 & 2 just went Ben > Brand. (My Team 1 centers are Dalembert & B.Miller. On Team 2, I moved from Bosh to Ostertag). Team #3 went Ben > Marshall, and moved Bosh to R. Wallace.
The point is that even with Bosh hurt, I couldn't see keeping Beg Ben and moving him to C.
|
| 75 | Bond, James Bond
ID: 6027723
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 01:16
|
ESB----For what it's worth, I think making Wallace available at center IS the right thing to do.
|
| 76 | Dunkenstein
Donor
ID: 39541913
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 01:49
|
For myself, I think Wallace should be made eligible at guard
as well. Then he'd be the first 3 position player in the
history of Smallworld/TSN. Think of the options that would
give Wallace owners. You could rotate studs in new, never
before imagined ways.
|
| 77 | Dunkenstein
Donor
ID: 39541913
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 02:02
|
And then TSN could put a big red "I" next to his name on
everybody's roster page, just to watch managers squirm and
complain. They probably just do this stuff to see what type
of reaction they'll get from "those crazy-ass purists over at
Rotoguru who don't realize IT'S JUST A GAME." So they read
these boards and laugh and laugh.
In fact, Deadeyes is their "agent provocateur". They use him
to get us riled up. They tried using PGunn/Jerry Lewis, but
he was too over the top. So they moved him to writing
about women's field hockey for the magazine.
You ever notice how the monicker Jerry Lewis disappeared
from these boards around the time Deadeyes started to
assert himself. And he's not going to stop until he reaches
"Jerk"status just like his predecessor.
|
| 78 | The Last Word???
ID: 17129323
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 02:03
|
How appropriate that a fictional character makes a fictional statment. Ben should not have been made available at C. It was NOT the right thing to do.
That being said, I'm not sure it REALLY matters in the big picture. Yeah, depending on certain roster set-ups some teams may take advantage of Ben's position flexability. However the real issue is what it says about the integrity of the rules and I think that's what has most of the posters here up in arms. By the rules, Ben should have been credited for one start at C. That's what TSN should have told the emailing masses. And that's only if in fact he plays. It seems his C availabilty should be taken away if he gets injured in the next few days and doesn't start?
There's been many issues raised during the year regarding the rules. For instance, the idea of "anti-gravity" or alternative price adjustment measures for over and under performing players. It's clear the game has been evolving over the past few years and fundamentally in a better way each year. However, in the future TSN needs to determine whether a change affects the validity of the rules or simply provides better functionaliy for the game (i.e. the "I" designations) Changing the method for posting the "I" does not materially change the rules of the game.
Long story, short. Some changes can be made midstream, while some should be made at the end of the year. In this case a change in the rules for next year would have been the most appropriate action.
|
| 79 | The Last Word???
ID: 17129323
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 02:05
|
Fictional character in 75, not you dunk.
|
| 80 | Bond, James Bond
ID: 6027723
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 02:10
|
Thank you Jim Rome! ;)
|
| 81 | H2OPG
ID: 2290271
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 02:16
|
If someone didn't know how owning Wallace could help him, check new Bosh injury.
Big Ben has, you're right, a 2 in 6, but after that? oh, "only" a 11 in 17 and i think it could really be worth holding him to fill a C spot.
No! TSN has really alterated a fair game in a dictatorial one (even without Bosh injury, of course).
|
| 82 | IRRIDUCIBILI LAZIO
ID: 37057282
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 06:54
|
erik, can you please give a look to the thread we european started for you or bernie?
it should be educated by you to at least give an answer instead that ignoring it as we don't deserve attention as users.....
thanks.
|
| 83 | skill999
ID: 31027286
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 08:13
|
Bosh injures ankle but hopes to face Magic tonight
Toronto Star
|
| 84 | penngray
ID: 453492921
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 08:40
|
If someone didn't know how owning Wallace could help him, check new Bosh injury.
Big Ben has, you're right, a 2 in 6, but after that? oh, "only" a 11 in 17 and i think it could really be worth holding him to fill a C spot.
No! TSN has really alterated a fair game in a dictatorial one (even without Bosh injury, of course).
use a freaking trade to pick him up. People owning him would have moved him to Brand most likely anyways but yes the bosh injury may change things. In the end there is only ONE difference here people that have him may not use a trade, people that dont have him could use a trade. Net result probably around 45 point, probably less because of the 2 in 6. Wow! Killer change. People that hold Wallace have to hold through the 2 in 6 to advantage now of the position change.
In the end all the "Rule integrity" complaints have no legs in my opinion since the only time we should care is when a change has an actually impact on the game. This change didnt have an impact the game.
|
| 85 | The Last Word???
ID: 3014947
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 09:36
|
Penngray, with all due respect, the "Rule Integrity" complaints are the only complaints that have a leg to stand on. I agree with you 100% that the net effect is small. Complaints about how it ruins someones strategy are greatly exaggerated. In all likelihood the overall affect will be negligable.
However, as it is with any game, we all like to know the rules we're playing by when we start and expect them to remain the same until we're done. We realize that sometimes there's a need to change something. Usually changes are needed where a rule is unclear or completely created an unfair advantage for one side or the other. Apparently TSN thought a change was needed here. Unfortunately, it was the wrong choice. In this situation the rule was clear and no one would have had an unfair advantage by leaving Ben's status alone. Anyone who understands this game would never have expected him to be available at C. So the net affect if TSN had left his status alone would have been ZERO. In this case it turned a non issue into an issue.
What concerns me is "What's next?" My original point was that TSN should try to limit rule changes to between the seasons and not during the season.
|
| 86 | thinkinbig
ID: 290162421
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 09:42
|
Agreed - no real impact on THE GAME! The 2 in 6 are BACK-TO-BACKAWAY games. It is better to drop him now & pick him up again when his sched. heats up rather than hold. "Keep your cheapies, rotate your studs." Last I heard, Big Ben is a stud.
|
| 87 | Senator Urine
ID: 1518319
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 09:51
|
It does have a large impact. Everyone with Ben has a much greater advantage than those without him, especially with the Bosh injury. There is a ripple effect in this game. If someone doesn't have Ben and doesn't have cash in the bank and Bosh is out, they are forced to grab a cheap center and more than likely use another trade getting out of them shortly. If someone does have Ben, they can simply shift him to center and pick up a good cheap forward or guard (since most have Joe Johnson's GF flexibility), and you can't tell me those options are equal to cheap center options. This in turn puts teams with Ben at a huge advantage in that they get to jump on solid cheap players at other positions and conserve more trades. If I had known this a week ago, I would have moved Brand to Ben. What's especially infuriating is the sheer randomness of the date. Yeah all star reserves were announced, but A) Ben is not a reserve. B) He's been listed on the ballot as a center for a long time now. And most importantly C) He has been voted in as a starter for a bit now. This change should NOT have happened based on TSN's own rules and also simple logic. If you go to the TSN boards and ask "Hey, who wants Duncan to be a guard and half his current price?" I'm sure the response will be overwhelmingly favorable. Does that mean it should happen? No. Does that mean those with Duncan now have a significant advantage over others who have a different stud? Yes.
This move should not have happened at all, and definitely not at a random point. If it had to happen, after the all-star break would have been the time. TSN has done a great job with the game, and they were in fact dead on with the new freeze system in my opinion (I was skeptical at first), but this one just isn't right. That being said, this is by far still the greatest product out there and I hope TSN never takes it away. If they fix the "I" fiasco, the game really will be as close to perfect as you can get.
|
| 88 | Deadeyes
ID: 51137210
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 10:01
|
It helped me a lot last night. I moved up 60 spots because of it from like 210 to 146. That's pretty impressive since i haven't moved up more than 10 ranks at a time for a long time. Thanks TSN.
|
| 89 | Tairese
ID: 270242320
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 10:02
|
Can't believe this thread is still going. I mean, ok he became a Center, whoop dee doo, great, its time to move on. WE CAN'T UNDO THAT MOVE! So what if Larry Brown goes, "Oh, Mehmet Okur has been playing PF all the time, I had Ben Wallace at center", then would everyone complain? I mean, really now.
|
| 90 | The Last Word???
ID: 3014947
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 10:12
|
I just love it when someone helps extend a threads life by complaining that it's still going.
Yes, we can't undo it. But we can hopefully make sure this type of willy-nilly change doesn't happen again. It just wasn't a necessary change. and a little frustrating that it occurred.
|
| 91 | Ender
ID: 459217
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 10:14
|
penngray, it's the precedent that's the problem. We need to make it clear that this is a bad idea in general. The actual impact this time is not important, but hte potential for impact by future similar decisions is extremely important.
|
| 92 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 11:16
|
I know I said I was going to drop this - and I am no longer interested in berating TSN. But penngray, your comments in 84 almost caused me to bust a gut. They are such crapola that I simply feel compelled to respond.
Wallace was on more than a quarter of all active rosters, and on 36 of the top 100 rosters. Whether or not those teams choose to use that additional flexibility, it is an unfair option available to them at no cost. Everyone else has to use a trade to exploit it.
Perhaps most of those teams will dump Wallace today anyway. I'm sure some will not. Bosh's unfortunate injury will certainly provide those teams a viable option that should not be available. Some may use that to their advantage. And it doesn't really matter whether holding Wallace turns out to be a good decision or not.
In all likelihood, this advantage won't turn out to be worth more than 50 TSNP or so at most. And for most teams, that isn't likely to change their final ranking or prize eligibilty. But for some teams it might. There will be plenty of closely fought battles down the stretch, and it's hard for me to imagine that this won't have a bearing on some races.
But most of all, it is the rules integrity that is the core issue. Whether or not the breach impacts 0, 1, or 2000 teams, it was probably ill advised, certainly ill timed, clearly unnecessary, and indisputably disruptive. I realize that rules exceptions occasionally must be made, especially when adapting to system glitches, or when correcting for an obvious inequity. But I cannot understand how this comes remotely close to satisfying that standard. It seems like it was primarily a reaction to a herd of requests, and was made without really understanding the potential implications. The lingering purpose of this thread is to try to show why these decisions are not in the best interests of the game - hopefully to ensure that future decisions are made with a better understanding of the full implications. It appears that TSN did not expect this to be such a significant bone of contention. At the very least, they now realize that it was. And hopefully, they also understand why.
|
| 93 | penngray
ID: 453492921
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 13:08
|
Im in the minority on this but thats okay. I believe in the fact that things happen everywhere and for me its never a black and white and small unwritten changes dont bother me. Besides there isnt a correlation of a single event like this to overall integrity of a business. TSN has had integrity over the years and to think that this is a "snowball" effect on overall decisions is a real stretch for me.
This change cause a good debate but in the end there is NOT an advantage as some would say.
For example, Wallace's recent performance have several managers moving Wallace to brand today. This move existed before and after the change therefore no advantage for those owners who still dropped him. Others will pick him up and that is not an advantage either. Granted those who moved Wallace to center and dropped Del for Daniels gained 21 points (As usual Deadeye's exaggerates) but it cost a trade to do it! and that is the only move that takes advantage of Wallace, it still cost a trade. I just dont see any move that has the advantage many talked about.
In the end did TSN do the wrong thing? Yes, I never said they didnt. I didnt once post saying it was a good idea on how the changed the status
Is this a huge change? Nope and that is why I posted my opinions against other opinions. I think its crazy to think the impact is any more then a blip on a radar screen that has 1000s of blips over the year.
Guru, you cant think someone will blame their 50 pt loss on WallaceGate. lol, every player makes many mistakes over the season, every player has events out of their control that happen over the season. One singled event doesnt make or break a season.
|
| 94 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 13:37
|
Chaos Theory -
The flapping of a single butterfly's wing today produces a tiny change in the state of the atmosphere. Over a period of time, what the atmosphere actually does diverges from what it would have done. So, in a month's time, a tornado that would have devastated the Indonesian coast doesn't happen. Or maybe one that wasn't going to happen, does. (Ian Stewart, Does God Play Dice? The Mathematics of Chaos, pg. 141)
This phenomenon, common to chaos theory, is also known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. Just a small change in the initial conditions can drastically change the long-term behavior of a system. Such a small amount of difference in a measurement might be considered experimental noise, background noise, or an inaccuracy of the equipment. Such things are impossible to avoid in even the most isolated lab. With a starting number of 2, the final result can be entirely different from the same system with a starting value of 2.000001. It is simply impossible to achieve this level of accuracy - just try and measure something to the nearest millionth of an inch!
This one single event (that most of us agree shouldn't have happened) could lead to 100's or 1000's of point changes.
We are just starting to see the results as people move to players they otherwise would not have done. Money, points, and trades are now different than what they would have been. Compound this over the next half of the season and you have the potential for a very different ending than you would have had in each league and overall.
|
| 95 | Tairese
ID: 331043611
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 13:57
|
90: Got an alternative way? I'd like to know.
(Yes I realize this is perpetuating the thread too. )
Ben Wallace is now a "center". Great. Excellent. Let the selloff begin!
|
| 96 | Ender
ID: 459217
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 14:12
|
Nobody's forecasting a snowball, but the potential for a future decision of this exact nature could have an impact on the game itself. What if Wallace didn't have a 2 in 6? The fact that he does minimizes the damage this time, but you have to admit that the potential is there. Next time the decision may impact the game, that's why people are upset.
|
| 97 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 14:25
|
Gmoney[94] -
Hahaha. I was just thinking the exact same thing.
Case in point. I started the season with 5 teams, all with the same draft, and all with the same trades - for awhile. The plan was that at some point when I was on the fence, I'd take different paths for different teams.
My first deviation was on November 9th, about 2 weeks into the season. On 3 teams, I dropped Crawford and McGrady and added Iverson and Ron Murray. On the other 2, I just dropped McGrady and added Billups. (There were a couple of other trades in common at the same time which absorbed some of the excess cash.)
As I recall, the issue was whether to drop Crawford early to pick up Murray, in spite of a near term schedule advantage for Murray. I decided to go for money on one team, and points on the other. I knew that the Billups/Crawford tandem would not be a profitable as Iverson/Murray, but I thought it might be more productive in points.
Since that time, those two versions have been managed pretty similarly, except when circumstances dictated a difference. For example, the Billups version was less profitable, and has had to settle for one slightly inferior player for most of the time, based on affordability.
That butterfly flap has turned out to produce a difference of almost $3 million in roster value, and about 150 spots in rank (more than 500 TSNP). It's amazing to me, given that the teams have been managed so similarly - probably having 8-9 players in common at all times.
I'm not trying to pin a -500 TSNP potential on the Ben Wallace eligibility issue. But it is interesting to see how a small difference can mushroom.
|
| 98 | a98civ
ID: 48122413
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 14:35
|
I don't understand why everyone is making such a big deal about this. This is absolutely fair. This helps everybody. If anything this makes the game more competitive. A lot of people need to get over it. You guys are acting like your mom just took your favorite teddy away from you. This does in fact change the game, but then again so do injuries! In stead of whining about this why don't you figure out how this can help you. Hope I didn't offend anyone.
|
| 99 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 14:52
|
Guru - so true - great example
a98civ:
What I don't understand is how you can read 97 posts before yours of which most are explaining why it isn't fair and still post that what you did in 98.
Your comparison to injuries is pretty weak. TSN doesn't control who or when a player gets injured in the NBA. They do control deviating from their own rules to give an advantage to the current owners of Mr. Wallace.
I sure hope you are wrong about my mom taking my favorite teddy away. That is the first thing I will look for when I get home.
Your last line - figure out how it can help you. Well those that own him have done just that I am sure by sliding him to center if appropriate. Those that don't own him may have to spend one or two trades just to get him and have the same luxury that others were given free. That my friend is the problem. Credit me with two trades extra trades and I will adjust right now, no questions asked. Wonder how that would go over with everyone.
|
| 100 | a98civ
ID: 48122413
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:02
|
So lemme guess some guy that's in 2635th place is now gonna blow up and win the game because Wallace is available at C now. NO, it's not gonna happen. For the rest of the people that are really competing for position in the game I will predict that they are intelligent enough to work this little change into the rest of their season. This isn't a big deal. It happened, It's over. Deal with it.
|
| 101 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:07
|
2635 place you say - I think that is where Deadeyes is right now and he keeps telling us his master plan will put him ahead of everyone. This may be the break he was waiting for.
|
| 102 | Guru
ID: 330592710
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:07
|
I'm itching to make a snappy retort, but I'm going to refrain, as it would undoubtedly be impolitic.
|
| 103 | Deadeyes
ID: 51137210
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 15:40
|
Treasure map says "there is plenty of time let BIG BEN tick."
says "when blue jay gets shot down, don't release until you mend it's wing"
|
| 104 | thinkinbig
ID: 290162421
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 16:15
|
Just for fun I had my Administrative Assistant (a 21 year old female who knows very little about BBall, and less about Smallworld) read this thread. She couldn't believe that you guys take this so SERIOUSLY. She didn't realize that MEN took anything in LIFE as seriously as we all take this game. Her comment was that we all should have the same PASSION for our women as we do for our fantasy basketball team. I threatened to force her to read Deadeyes post about never meeting a woman he coudn't conquer.
|
| 105 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 16:16
|
thinkbig:
With women the rules change all the time. That is why I have taken to smallworld the way I have. I guess I may have to go back to my wife now :)
|
| 106 | Gmoney
Donor
ID: 5810561615
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 16:17
|
Thinkbig -
You left out the most important thing - Did she think Ben should be a C or not :)
|
| 107 | thinkinbig
ID: 290162421
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 16:51
|
And who knew that a quality control person with a hangover working for a company in Texas that made voting machines some 15 years ago let some machines pass that wound up in Florida, which ultimately caused some "hanging Chads," thereby throwing the results of a national election into the hands of the Supreme Court.
The rest, as they say, is history.
|
| 108 | ESB
ID: 33121417
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 18:26
|
Lazio: I've hit the Euro-discussion before -- we simply can't offer prizes overseas.
I'll look into the injury thread now.
-ESB
|
| 109 | Deadeyes
ID: 50104029
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 19:10
|
Hey ESB. Who do i need to talk toto get my prize money from baseball?
|
| 110 | The Last Word???
ID: 3014947
Wed, Feb 04, 2004, 19:21
|
Tairese in 95: Got an alternative way to what?
Complain without extending the thread....yeah, mumble to yourself. I find it amusing when people keep reviving a thread. It kept happening in the "A Must Have" thread at Christmas. If the nay sayers would have just left it alone then it would have lasted a day at most. But instead someone had to drop a bomb and watch the schrapnel fly around for another couple of days.
Or did you mean, prevent the willy-nilly changes from occurring in the future.....yeah, hopefully TSN reads the posts and realizes this wasn't the best decision and will not make exceptions to the rules in mid season again. I've said all along that I don't know if this change will really affect the outcome of any league, but whether it does or not is not the issue.
Even if no one had him it still would have been a bad move. He's not a C and should not qualify as one.
|
| 111 | ESB
ID: 18156511
Thu, Feb 05, 2004, 19:25
|
Deadeyes:
Please email me (ebarmack@sportingnews.com) and/or Larry (lcourtines@sportingnews.com).
-ESB
|
| 112 | CJ
ID: 28001522
Fri, Feb 06, 2004, 01:36
|
LOL OH MY GO.....D WOW have I been asleep or what. I can not beleive the intensity in this thread for Wallace now being a "C". Plans were altered! Aren't they each week when other player are changed in their elgibilty?
I got to think the "I" Issue is a much better fish to fry with ESB!
I am actually relieved that wallace is finally at the C position. I have felt all year long that if Dirk is listed at C then Wallace should have as well. They were both last year. Start the year with a little more love for the Center position.
And Damn ESB...you got balls to keep coming back in here for some more. LOL I salute you bro! Ruff & Tuff crowd in here.
|
| 113 | Deadeyes
ID: 51137210
Wed, Feb 11, 2004, 12:52
|
ESB,
I sent you an email a week ago and still no reply.
???
|
| 114 | Gman15
Dude
ID: 1531677
Wed, Feb 11, 2004, 14:30
|
He said to send him an email; he didn't say he would look into it or respond.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|