Jump to content


Photo

2017 NBA Lottery / Draft


  • Please log in to reply
4943 replies to this topic

#4901 MaceWindu

MaceWindu

    Starter

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Location:The OC
  • Name:Ben
  • Fan Since:Hector was a pup
  • Fav. Laker:Magic

Posted June 24, 2017 - 01:16 PM

We're going to have one Kick A$$ Summer League team. Can't say about the regular season even though its essentially the same players. So yeah. There's that.


Edited by MaceWindu, June 24, 2017 - 01:17 PM.


#4902 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,288 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 24, 2017 - 01:18 PM

After they got the team back in order yes.  Kobe had a phase post Shaq where he was a great individual player but a terrible teammate and leader. Winning changed that narrative for him.  

 

I think at the time though there was a legit argument to be made.  Without Shaq what separates Kobe from a player like T-Mac or Vince Carter?  Again...at the time.  Kobe proved his doubters wrong.  


  • Jackson, Majesty, kball and 1 other like this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4903 Majesty

Majesty

    Luol Deng's cousin is awesome. Thanks for the pizza!!

  • Gameday
  • 54,335 posts
  • Name:Jay
  • Fan Since:1987
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe present, Magic past

Posted June 24, 2017 - 01:28 PM

Yeah, Kobe never really got leadership down to perfection till around 2007, about 10 years into his career, he even admits that, it took some introspection but he said around 2007 was the time he really started to understand what it took to be a leader and doing it the right way.  And the Finals lost was a major test to that, but he kept at it just changed a few things to bring out the competitive nature of his teammates and it worked.   

So Kobe went through a major growth spurt in that regard.  As my dad puts it "Kobe wasn't a leader till around 2007 midway through the season after the tantrum.  He was a guy who took the initiative and lead, but he wasn't a leader."  I couldn't put it any better than that. 


Edited by Majesty, June 24, 2017 - 01:30 PM.

"Bryant had come to rage against the idea that Howard's clownish disposition could overtake the locker room, the Lakers' culture, and had warned Howard that he would never, ever let it happen." 


#4904 Jackson

Jackson

    Legend

  • Member
  • 10,440 posts
  • Location:Honolulu, Hawaii
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant/Kareem/Sasha(LOL)

Posted June 24, 2017 - 01:44 PM

The idea of Isaiah, Hayward and PG on the same team sucks as a Lakers fan.  [expletive] man. 

 

Shaq was not traded for and it was a totally different CBA.  I believe Shaq was 24 when we acquired him.  That would be like getting Anthony Davis in free agency right now.  

 

Kareem is a good example but he was already a HOF AND gave them another 9 years on a team that was able to stretch out his career.  

 

When we got Pau we had the best player in the NBA. 

 

Im not sure how they acquired Wilt but at the time they had Jerry West.  

 

If Boston acquires Paul George and Gordon Hayward that could seriously turn the tide in keeping him.  I know all the rental stuff is real now but it's still a year in the dudes life time and people and conditions change.  Im pretty concerned about the team if they dont acquire Paul George. 

 

I think people are reacting to the trade for a number of different reasons. 

 

1) You have some that are just extreme DLo stans.  I'd say Maj probably falls into this.  No disrespect. 

 

2) You have some that are simply just believers in his talent and through these terrible seasons, terrible coaching of Byron and the nauseating play of Kobe in his last 2 years D'angelo was the first of the young bunch that showed flashes of actually be a quality NBA player.  

 

After the dust has settled I think the trade was premature BUT I'm  giving them the benefit of the doubt that they know something we don't. Maybe there is some truth to the Nick Young video tarnishing his rep to the point outside top guys would probably not want to play with him.  Maybe he was supremely annoying in the locker room.  Who knows.  

 

I do believe that IF making a big splash is their plan IT HAS to work.  GCMD you mentioned the rest of the youth but none of them showed the level of play that Russell did in their first year.  Randle has some serious flaws in his game to where he may not even be a starter in the NBA.  Ingram is in someways a project player.  We dont know what his path is going to look like.  Zubac may not even be able to adjust to the current wave of the NBA as a full time starter.  At least with Russell we could see a 20ppg player given the minutes and a quality shooter.  

 

I personally aint attached to him like say a Maj but he was the one guy that actually produced at a level of his peers at his position that are considered GOOD players.  Randle, Zubac and Ingram have not done that yet.  

 

Now they are boosting Ball automatically as the face of the franchise and in hopes they can get a 2nd guy with Paul George and thats whats going to make them a winner again.  The plan doesnt seem any different than what Jim/Mitch were doing by chasing Melo and Aldridge.  

 

The one hopeful thing in place is that they dont have an damn near dead on the court Kobe and Byron Scott coaching and the perception appears to have changed.  So I'm optimistic but cautious about the next move.  I also dont think this team as constructed is going to be very good or even better than last year unless they somehow acquire Paul George.  Acquiring Paul George also requires them to flush the rest of the known youth they have.  Randle, Clarkson and 1 or 2 of (Nance, Kuzma, Zubac, Hart and Bryant) will be gone if they get him OR a future 1st round pick.  



#4905 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 24, 2017 - 03:38 PM

Straw-men galore. Ugh...

 

Not sure you understand what a "Straw man" argument/fallacy is...if you did, you would have realized that it did not apply when there is no argument for or against being made.  He posted categories...I expanded that list to include other categories.  I made no argument for against his categories in reference to their exclusion of mine.

 

Here is what I posted:

 

I appreciate this post because it makes your POV clear.  I think I understand how you feel more now.

 

Jody Smokes, on 24 Jun 2017 - 1:03 PM, said:snapback.png

I think people are reacting to the trade for a number of different reasons. 

 

1) You have some that are just extreme DLo stans.  I'd say Maj probably falls into this.  No disrespect. 

 

2) You have some that are simply just believers in his talent and through these terrible seasons, terrible coaching of Byron and the nauseating play of Kobe in his last 2 years D'angelo was the first of the young bunch that showed flashes of actually be a quality NBA player.  

 

3) You have some people who don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance.

 

4) You have some that did not view Russell as a Franchise Level Player (fido) and thus not worthy of building around

 

Lots of perspectives and none truly wrong or right.

 

YOUR post, by misrepresenting my words and posting them out of context, is a straw man argument/fallacy...LOL...ironic.

 

 

 

Kobe and Magic are much more loved by fans than Kareem and Shaq even though a lot of people would agree that  Kareem is the GOAT and that Shaq was the most dominant player during his run.  It's still special to have a homegrown guy on the team thats a major part of the winning.  Paul George and Lebron being the top 2 guys on the team isn't that special to me.  Even if Lonzo and Ingram are on those possible teams they won't be the focus of the team.  If this team signs PG and Bron all this Lonzo is the face bs is going to sound like made up history. 

 

 

 

But isn't that the point?  Kobe and Magic were drafted but they didn't win without attracting other stars or the franchise TRADING for other stars.  You may want to win with players we drafted but that's not realistic.  MOST teams have a combination of homegrown and acquired and there is nothing bad about either.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like an argument to support Russell as the best player and sticking with him as if it would have been more "satisfying" to win with him after struggling to get him...?

 

Please don't take this as disrespect but winning an NBA Championship is hard enough without a made up parameter like this to restrict player personnel decisions or movement.  If the Lakers were constrained to this, they'd have to SUCK for YEARS hoping to land at least 1 Franchise Player in the Draft AND multiple HIGH level role players.  That's not an efficient way to operate a MULTI-BILLION dollar company.

 

Nor is it smart to continue to feature a player that no longer represents the direct you wish to take...

 

And don't forget the Spectrum Deal...they aren't waiting for a "feel good story".

 

I get your point but I don't understand your stance.  If you are willing to wait on a player like Russell, why not Ball?  Or Ingram?  We still have them...they could become those guys too, right?  Russell may have showed potential but I think we all agree that Ball and Ingram have a higher ceiling, no?


Edited by GCMD, June 24, 2017 - 03:41 PM.

tenor.gif


#4906 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,288 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 24, 2017 - 03:52 PM

Who says I'm not? The Russell trade isn't good or bad on it's own.  It's the moves that come after that matter.  We don't know what Ball's ceiling is. I mean if we're comparing them coming right out of college then I dont think you can objectively say that Ball's ceiling is higher at all. Coming into the draft they have largely the same weaknesses with Ball projecting to be a better passer and Russell clearly being a better scorer.  

 

Russell was the only NBA talent on his team when they lost in the tourney, Ball played with 2 other guys that were drafted.  I think since we've had 2 years to see the bad in Russell we can hold that against him and we have no NBA data on Ball it's easy to say hey he's better.  We'll have to see what Ball's struggles look like before we can objectively say this.  

 

Ingram in theory has higher potential but he hasn't shown enough to say that he's going to be a future all star by any means.  The same guys that say Russell likely isnt a future star can't objectively say the same about Ingram.  Most of these opinions are formed around perception and not production and skills shown.   

 

I mean I hope that Ball/Ingram are better than Russell but I can't concede to that as some actual fact, especially since Russell had at least average NBA efficiency in both years and Ingram was terrible before late February.  

 

Not sure you understand what a "Straw man" argument/fallacy is...if you did, you would have realized that it did not apply when there is no argument for or against being made.  He posted categories...I expanded that list to include other categories.  I made no argument for against his categories in reference to their exclusion of mine.

 

Here is what I posted:

 

 

YOUR post, by misrepresenting my words and posting them out of context, is a straw man argument/fallacy...LOL...ironic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But isn't that the point?  Kobe and Magic were drafted but they didn't win without attracting other stars or the franchise TRADING for other stars.  You may want to win with players we drafted but that's not realistic.  MOST teams have a combination of homegrown and acquired and there is nothing bad about either.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like an argument to support Russell as the best player and sticking with him as if it would have been more "satisfying" to win with him after struggling to get him...?

 

Please don't take this as disrespect but winning an NBA Championship is hard enough without a made up parameter like this to restrict player personnel decisions or movement.  If the Lakers were constrained to this, they'd have to SUCK for YEARS hoping to land at least 1 Franchise Player in the Draft AND multiple HIGH level role players.  That's not an efficient way to operate a MULTI-BILLION dollar company.

 

Nor is it smart to continue to feature a player that no longer represents the direct you wish to take...

 

And don't forget the Spectrum Deal...they aren't waiting for a "feel good story".

 

I get your point but I don't understand your stance.  If you are willing to wait on a player like Russell, why not Ball?  Or Ingram?  We still have them...they could become those guys too, right?  Russell may have showed potential but I think we all agree that Ball and Ingram have a higher ceiling, no?


Edited by Jody Smokes, June 24, 2017 - 03:54 PM.

  • Majesty and lakerfan98 like this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4907 dazz

dazz

    ..............

  • Member
  • 1,211 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:27 AM

 

3) You have some people who don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance.

 

4) You have some that did not view Russell as a Franchise Level Player (fido) and thus not worthy of building around

 

3) is a blatant misrepresentation of the arguments put forth against the trade.

You've also turned the whole thing into a ridiculous false dichotomy, implying that one either believes Russell is a franchise player worth building around, or else the trade is fine.

 

Of course there are lots of perspectives, but you never addressed the actual arguments against the trade: that it looked rushed and we sold low for instance

 

I'm not going to keep arguing over this though, let's just move on


Edited by dazz, June 25, 2017 - 02:28 AM.

  • Jody Smokes and lakerfan98 like this

hsl17b.jpg


#4908 Tensai

Tensai

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 8,291 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:42 AM

I don't get this "we sold low" argument. Did we really sell low? What is the price for just unloading a contract like Mozgov's in current NBA?


fXlFKv8.gif

 


#4909 Tensai

Tensai

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 8,291 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 02:43 AM

And this thread should probably be locked now that the lottery/draft are over.


fXlFKv8.gif

 


#4910 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,288 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 25, 2017 - 07:15 AM

We won't find out if the trade is good until 2018.  If they get the 2nd star and become a top 3 seed then they look like geniuses.  If they fail to attain the 2 max players they got the cap for then the trade was pointless.  

 

I don't get this "we sold low" argument. Did we really sell low? What is the price for just unloading a contract like Mozgov's in current NBA?


  • lakerfan98 likes this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4911 kball

kball

    Mocker-in-Chief

  • Member
  • 7,537 posts
  • Fan Since:'71
  • Fav. Laker:kobe, magic, logo

Posted June 25, 2017 - 07:19 AM

We won't find out if the trade is good until 2018.  If they get the 2nd star and become a top 3 seed then they look like geniuses.  If they fail to attain the 2 max players they got the cap for then the trade was pointless.  

Agree.

 

Or unless they figure out a way to get a lot more out of guys we have now.

Along with a shooter or 2 below max


Praying for  1. Some Cohesion (Ill fitting parts with young bucks, new guys, and those playing for next contracts may muck things up all season) 2. Better Coaching, No More Tanking (Last season was more of the latter but not sure how much of the former we can count on. Walton with something to prove this season as much as any Laker player) 3. Rookie Watch (Hoping Lonzo outshines his daddy (ROTY??), and Kuzma finds minutes and makes a push for all rook 2nd team)

READY FOR SEASON!!!

 

 


#4912 Julien

Julien

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,978 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 25, 2017 - 07:59 AM

I looked up the team by team grades for the draft on CBS:

A+: Wolves, Raptors
A: Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, Warriors, Nets, Magic, Sixers
A-: Jazz, Suns
B+: Thunder
B: Rockets, Clippers, Pelicans, Hornets, Pistons
B-: Grizzlies, Hawks
C+: Blazers
C: Knicks, Bucks, Bulls
C-: Heat, Nuggets
D+: Pacers
D: Celtics

N/A: Cavs, Wizards

Details: https://www.google.c...t-with-a-d/amp/
  • MaceWindu likes this

#4913 BleedPurple&Gold

BleedPurple&Gold

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 7,241 posts
  • Location:Florida
  • Name:Gary
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant, Magic

Posted June 25, 2017 - 09:09 AM

I was hoping the Lakers would sign Peter Jok

#4914 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 12:25 PM

I appreciate this post because it makes your POV clear.  I think I understand how you feel more now.

 

 

3) You have some people who don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance.

 

4) You have some that did not view Russell as a Franchise Level Player (fido) and thus not worthy of building around

 

Lots of perspectives and none truly wrong or right.

 

3) is a blatant misrepresentation of the arguments put forth against the trade.

You've also turned the whole thing into a ridiculous false dichotomy, implying that one either believes Russell is a franchise player worth building around, or else the trade is fine.

 

Of course there are lots of perspectives, but you never addressed the actual arguments against the trade: that it looked rushed and we sold low for instance

 

I'm not going to keep arguing over this though, let's just move on

 

3) is true and has been implied by a couple.  Majesty is one but I didn't want to call him out.  Are you saying this is incorrect?  If so, put forth YOUR proof that it is.  Don't put forth a vague "misrepresentation" argument.

 

Majesty LITERALLY says he has no faith in this Front Office AND this was their first major move and he does NOT want to give them a chance to finish ONE OFFSEASON...what's untrue or duplicitous about that?

 

4) described a poster and I named him.  I did not connect this one to 3) nor did I imply that I was attempting to.  I expanded the list of perspectives.  YOU inferred what you chose to and created an argument that didn't exist...STRAW MAN.

 

There are MANY dichotomies resulting from this move as far as opinion of it...that's NORMAL.  You're acting like we should all have one view...that almost NEVER happens...unless that's not how you meant the word "dichotomy".

 

 

And I did NOT restrict the list to 3) and 4).  If I didn't, how could I POSSIBLY be accused of implying that these were the ONLY to options as opinion or views of this trade?  I LITERALLY said "LOTS" to make sure that I didn't.   YOU are misrepresenting everything I said!

 

Not only do you NOT know what a "straw man" argument is, you KEEP presenting STRAW MAN arguments to support your stance!  LOL...

 

Irony defined.


Edited by GCMD, June 25, 2017 - 12:29 PM.

tenor.gif


#4915 ChichoGarcy

ChichoGarcy

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,710 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Name:Chicho
  • Fan Since:1992
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 12:27 PM

I looked up the team by team grades for the draft on CBS:


A+: Wolves, Raptors

A: Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, Warriors, Nets, Magic, Sixers

A-: Jazz, Suns

B+: Thunder

B: Rockets, Clippers, Pelicans, Hornets, Pistons

B-: Grizzlies, Hawks

C+: Blazers

C: Knicks, Bucks, Bulls

C-: Heat, Nuggets

D+: Pacers

D: Celtics


N/A: Cavs, Wizards


Details: https://www.google.c...t-with-a-d/amp/



It says the Nets turned the 27th plus Lopez into D'angelo Russell, and that's a steal. No mention of Mozgov's contract for the next 3 years. Doesn't make any sense.
  • Julien likes this

#4916 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,288 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 25, 2017 - 12:52 PM

They have a gang of cap and Mozgov will be off their books well before they are good enough to have to worry about his contract.  

 

It says the Nets turned the 27th plus Lopez into D'angelo Russell, and that's a steal. No mention of Mozgov's contract for the next 3 years. Doesn't make any sense.


  • Julien likes this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4917 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,358 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:06 PM

Jody,

 

Ceiling is a theoretical term that includes all of the factors that could be maxed out.

 

 

Russell has a major flaw that has always limited his ceiling as a scorer - his lack of athleticism playing PG or SG in the Western Conference.  Ball is an above average athlete, doesn't have this issue.  Ingram is an above average athlete, doesn't have this issue.

 

If you consider both Ingram and Ball were good shooters and scorers coming out of college, most people can make the case for their ceiling (because they have more athleticism) is higher.  Ball took less 10 shots/game and would have averaged as much or more than Russell if he had shot the same number of shots (~20ppg - 73.2% on 2s and 41.2% on 3s)...

 

 

So yes, we can say Ball and Ingram have a higher ceiling.  That's not a guarantee.  I feel confident in saying that theoretically, both Ingram and Ball could be better than Russell.

 

Who says I'm not? The Russell trade isn't good or bad on it's own.  It's the moves that come after that matter.  We don't know what Ball's ceiling is. I mean if we're comparing them coming right out of college then I dont think you can objectively say that Ball's ceiling is higher at all. Coming into the draft they have largely the same weaknesses with Ball projecting to be a better passer and Russell clearly being a better scorer.  

 

Russell was the only NBA talent on his team when they lost in the tourney, Ball played with 2 other guys that were drafted.  I think since we've had 2 years to see the bad in Russell we can hold that against him and we have no NBA data on Ball it's easy to say hey he's better.  We'll have to see what Ball's struggles look like before we can objectively say this.  

 

Ingram in theory has higher potential but he hasn't shown enough to say that he's going to be a future all star by any means.  The same guys that say Russell likely isnt a future star can't objectively say the same about Ingram.  Most of these opinions are formed around perception and not production and skills shown.   

 

I mean I hope that Ball/Ingram are better than Russell but I can't concede to that as some actual fact, especially since Russell had at least average NBA efficiency in both years and Ingram was terrible before late February.  


tenor.gif


#4918 MaceWindu

MaceWindu

    Starter

  • Member
  • 4,906 posts
  • Location:The OC
  • Name:Ben
  • Fan Since:Hector was a pup
  • Fav. Laker:Magic

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:07 PM

I looked up the team by team grades for the draft on CBS:
A+: Wolves, Raptors
A: Lakers, Kings, Mavs, Spurs, Warriors, Nets, Magic, Sixers
A-: Jazz, Suns
B+: Thunder
B: Rockets, Clippers, Pelicans, Hornets, Pistons
B-: Grizzlies, Hawks
C+: Blazers
C: Knicks, Bucks, Bulls
C-: Heat, Nuggets
D+: Pacers
D: Celtics
N/A: Cavs, Wizards
Details: https://www.google.c...t-with-a-d/amp/


Surprised by the Celtics pick. I knew they liked Tatum and Jackson but I really thought they were going Jackson. I guess Ainge was that pissed off at Jackson not willing to work out for them.

#4919 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,288 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:33 PM

Russell isn't a higher flyer by any means but he's atleast an average athlete.  Ingram while lengthy isn't exactly a high flyer either.  Im not rating ceiling based on athleticism either.  For one Russell was just a flat out better bucket getter than both at the college level and pretty much proved that at the NBA level.  Ingram struggled a lot to score for the majority of the year.  

 

Either way Im kind of over arguing about the on court stuff.  I dont think Russell was traded b/c he didn't cut the mustard or was lacking in production at all.  If anything I believe that's what should have saved him.  They disagreed with that and felt that 2018 cap room was more important.  We will find out next year if that's the case.  

 

Personally I would have preferred Lonzo AND D'angelo working interchangeably.  Russell should have never been forced into a pure playmaker b/c he never WAS that.  Just like Lonzo isn't a scorer but he can shoot.  

 

Lonzo: Playmaker that can shoot but not a scorer 

D'Angelo: Scorer that can make plays like a PG

 

Jody,

 

Ceiling is a theoretical term that includes all of the factors that could be maxed out.

 

 

Russell has a major flaw that has always limited his ceiling as a scorer - his lack of athleticism playing PG or SG in the Western Conference.  Ball is an above average athlete, doesn't have this issue.  Ingram is an above average athlete, doesn't have this issue.

 

If you consider both Ingram and Ball were good shooters and scorers coming out of college, most people can make the case for their ceiling (because they have more athleticism) is higher.  Ball took less 10 shots/game and would have averaged as much or more than Russell if he had shot the same number of shots (~20ppg - 73.2% on 2s and 41.2% on 3s)...

 

 

So yes, we can say Ball and Ingram have a higher ceiling.  That's not a guarantee.  I feel confident in saying that theoretically, both Ingram and Ball could be better than Russell.


  • lakerfan98 likes this

"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)


#4920 dazz

dazz

    ..............

  • Member
  • 1,211 posts

Posted June 25, 2017 - 01:36 PM

GCMD, don't shift the burden of proof. It's your claim, not mine, that "some people don't believe in the Front Office and won't give them a chance"

You ask me to prove a negative.

Fact remains, no one has argued that Russell's trade is bad because they don't believe in the FO and whatever they might do is wrong. Maj has repeatedly said that he believes this trade forces us to go all in for PG, and that he doesn't believe that George will stay if we sign him anyway.

 

Your caricature of Maj's position is laughable


  • Jody Smokes likes this

hsl17b.jpg





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)