Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Any And All Things T-Wolves Related
User avatar
Q12543 [enjin:6621299]
Posts: 13844
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by Q12543 [enjin:6621299] »

lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.

Now, before anyone gets their undees in a bundle, note that letting Bazz go is WAY down on my list of concerns about the Wolves. But often it's the little things that can make a difference in one or two games and decide a team's fate at the end of a season. This season, the Wolves fate will literally come down to one game -- you pick the game during the season. Would Bazz have come though for the Wolves helped us beat the Nuggets last week or the Grizzlies two weeks ago? Who knows. Honestly, Bazz may have lost a game or two for the Wolves earlier this season.

Looking back on the season, there are plenty of games the Wolves should not have lost. Of all of them, the home loss to the Suns stands out for me. I should watch the replay of that one after the season to do a thorough post-mortum. Seeing that the Thunder trounced the Heat in Miami tonight, I also think back to the Heat throttling us on our home court earlier this year. Then there's the earlier loss to Memphis and the road looses to Orlando, Atlanta and New Jersey among others. Of course, there were the home losses to the Sixers without Covington and to the Wizards without Wall. I know I'm repeating myself. But embedded in those losses are a litany of "little things" that reflect on the players, coaches and front office staff. Regarding the Wolves front office, not having a true two-way wing or at least a bona fide 3-point ace as part of our bench could have been a decisive factor in some of those bad losses. Bazz was never the answer to either of those issues; I get that. But my problem is that we have a PBO who never addressed them. And that's going to come back and bite us now no matter what happens in Wednesday night's game against the Nuggets. And it might affect us in the Nuggets game.

Would I rather have Bazz than a vacant roster spot down the stretch? Yes, because I like the thought of someone on the bench who can put up 20+ points and 8 boards in 24 minutes on any given night and help his team win as he's done twice now for the Bucks down the stretch. But more fundamentally, we shouldn't have a vacant roster spot and letting Bazz go shouldn't matter.


I think that's the money line, Lip. Relying on Jamal Crawford to pretty much lead that second unit has been an unmitigated disaster. He has helped win us a couple games, but he has contributed to us losing countless others. Thibs' total lack of creativity and diligence to go find or unearth a bench wing that could hit 3's and play even average defense would have made a big difference.
User avatar
AbeVigodaLive
Posts: 9960
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by AbeVigodaLive »

lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.




I think what the Pacers, 76ers, Spurs and Celtics have done is wonderful. Each team has wildly surpassed expectations.

So I don't put Milwaukee anywhere near those teams. That team is about the same after firing Kidd for not realizing its promise... and it's going to lead to yet another coach coming in this summer. Even this "hot" streak to close the season is sorta "meh."

Beat Chicago. Meh. Even without Giannis.
Beat San Antonio. Legit.
Beat GSW without Curry, Thompson and only 17 minutes from Durant (ejected)
Beat Lakers.
Beat Celtics with something named Kadeem Allen starting his only career game (Rozier was out)
Beat Knicks. Meh. Even without Giannis.
Beat Orlando. Meh. Even without Giannis.

And as a Wolves fan, we should be angry at Milwaukee for literally giving the Denver game away.
- Led by 18 points in the 4th.
- Led by 8 with a minute left.
- Led by 3 with the ball with 5 seconds left. Turned it over... then fouled a three pointer with a second left.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by Monster »

Q12543 wrote:
lipoli390 wrote:I've discussed how impressive the Pacers, Sixers and Jazz have been this season. I should add the Spurs to that list, considering how they've secured themselves a likely 6th seed or higher playing the entire season without their best player, Kawhi Leonard.

Another team worthy of praise recently is Milwaukee. The Bucks have struggled, gone through a head coaching change and arguably underachieve much of the season. But they are 7-3 over the last 10 games and have really been playing well. Especially impressive is that 3 of their 7 wins in this stretch have come without Giannis on the court. That's a team showing some mental toughness and taking charge of their own destiny. Tonight's win over the Magic included 22 points and 8 rebounds from Bazz in only 24 minutes. It's his second 20+ point game in this 10-game stretch -- both games won by the Bucks. There have been a number of games where Bazz has hardly gotten any minutes, reminiscent of his time with the Wolves this season. Yet, apparently he's not such a locker room cancer the Bucks' front office can't find a place for him on their roster. And he's not such a lost cause that he can't give his team a big lift and help them win games both as a scorer and wing rebounder.

Now, before anyone gets their undees in a bundle, note that letting Bazz go is WAY down on my list of concerns about the Wolves. But often it's the little things that can make a difference in one or two games and decide a team's fate at the end of a season. This season, the Wolves fate will literally come down to one game -- you pick the game during the season. Would Bazz have come though for the Wolves helped us beat the Nuggets last week or the Grizzlies two weeks ago? Who knows. Honestly, Bazz may have lost a game or two for the Wolves earlier this season.

Looking back on the season, there are plenty of games the Wolves should not have lost. Of all of them, the home loss to the Suns stands out for me. I should watch the replay of that one after the season to do a thorough post-mortum. Seeing that the Thunder trounced the Heat in Miami tonight, I also think back to the Heat throttling us on our home court earlier this year. Then there's the earlier loss to Memphis and the road looses to Orlando, Atlanta and New Jersey among others. Of course, there were the home losses to the Sixers without Covington and to the Wizards without Wall. I know I'm repeating myself. But embedded in those losses are a litany of "little things" that reflect on the players, coaches and front office staff. Regarding the Wolves front office, not having a true two-way wing or at least a bona fide 3-point ace as part of our bench could have been a decisive factor in some of those bad losses. Bazz was never the answer to either of those issues; I get that. But my problem is that we have a PBO who never addressed them. And that's going to come back and bite us now no matter what happens in Wednesday night's game against the Nuggets. And it might affect us in the Nuggets game.

Would I rather have Bazz than a vacant roster spot down the stretch? Yes, because I like the thought of someone on the bench who can put up 20+ points and 8 boards in 24 minutes on any given night and help his team win as he's done twice now for the Bucks down the stretch. But more fundamentally, we shouldn't have a vacant roster spot and letting Bazz go shouldn't matter.


I think that's the money line, Lip. Relying on Jamal Crawford to pretty much lead that second unit has been an unmitigated disaster. He has helped win us a couple games, but he has contributed to us losing countless others. Thibs' total lack of creativity and diligence to go find or unearth a bench wing that could hit 3's and play even average defense would have made a big difference.


Again is a weird dichotomy with Thibs. It seems clear he went with some guys he thought could help down the road in Bazz and even holding onto a guy like MGH instead of signing guys like Rush or Gerald green etc. But then he really didn't play those guys. I mean i get not playing Bazz at different points of the season but if you are going to not sign a vet it makes sense you play some of the other guys you prioritized.

So then as it's been mentioned in I think it was this thread he goes out and gets Rose. It seemed like sort of an odd move but surprisingly Rose has shown life when healthy even looking surprisingly capable as a defender. A worry or consideration going forward could be how much does Rose possibly sticking with this organization affect what they do this offseason? Does it get in the way of adding a different player that fits better like prioritizing Bazz did last summer? Will he also take away minutes from a possible worthwhile wing?

To me the legit criticism of Thibs whether you like him hate him or somewhere in the middle is his rotations and minutes. If you are a FA this summer and you are a bench type would you want to come here? How much confidence would you have Thibs would play you? LST has reported Glen is unhappy with Thibs. I'd guess one source of his frustration was how Dieng hasn't played or regressed and how he basically buried Bazz. Q and Abe have commented about the lack of accountability players have had on this team for years. It doesn't feel like there is a culture being built with Thibs either. My guess is Wiggins and Towns get the benefit of the doubt because of their talent and I've never heard anyone say they don't put in the work etc or have a poor attitude. The point is I would like to see more of every player on the team matters culture. It doesn't SEEM to be the case and Jon K has said it feels that way as well. I'm guessing that Thins thinks every guy matters based on his comments the last 2 seasons but his actions (who plays when they play) doesn't show that which seems unfortunate. Again it feels like a weird dichotomy where he has absolutely done some things looking toward the future with younger players and then other times seems he'll bent on winning now even though he seems like he is unwilling to add a win now player off the street to the roster. It's weird. To build this team it's like you have to hope young fringe guys are really bought into the way Thibs does things or we may lose out on some decent players. This is how I perceive things and I am not looking to move on from Thibs.
User avatar
Monster
Posts: 23395
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by Monster »

So here comes the coaching carousel. Steve Clifford is the latest guy out. No worries Ryan Hollins is in studio to break it all down....wait what?

http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23151340/charlotte-hornets-fire-coach-steve-clifford
User avatar
BloopOracle
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by BloopOracle »

longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.


Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.
User avatar
khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]
Posts: 6414
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by khans2k5 [enjin:6608728] »

BloopOracle wrote:
longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.


Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.


He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.
User avatar
BloopOracle
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by BloopOracle »

khans2k5 wrote:
BloopOracle wrote:
longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.


Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.


He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.


Interesting, so why didn't all of these other rookies on bad teams over the years put up the numbers he did? I'm also having trouble understanding why you're trying to use his rookie averages against my prediction that he will be a great offensive player, it's been a single season lol he has plenty of time to grow his game. It's the same reason Wiggin's rookie numbers looked so promising but then when he virtually replicates it a few years later he's considered a borderline flop.

Here's the list of players who posted at least 1,000 points, 500 rebounds and 145 3-pointers during the 2017-18 NBA season:

LeBron James. Dario Saric. Lauri Markkanen.

not bad for a "chucking rookie"
User avatar
khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]
Posts: 6414
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by khans2k5 [enjin:6608728] »

BloopOracle wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
BloopOracle wrote:
longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.


Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.


He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.


Interesting, so why didn't all of these other rookies on bad teams over the years put up the numbers he did? I'm also having trouble understanding why you're trying to use his rookie averages against my prediction that he will be a great offensive player, it's been a single season lol he has plenty of time to grow his game.


Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.

I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.
User avatar
BloopOracle
Posts: 3042
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by BloopOracle »

khans2k5 wrote:
BloopOracle wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:
BloopOracle wrote:
longstrangetrip wrote:I watched some of the Bulls game last night, and I remain as unimpressed about Markkanen as ever. He benefited from two things last night...a horrible Bulls team that guarantees him minutes and shots, and a Raptors defense that just didn't care after they got up 20 (almost all of his points came after the game was out of hand). His defense and ballhandling were terrible...3 turnovers, but he could have had more. And I'm still going with my pre-draft take that he is not a very good 3-point shooter, even though that is the one thing he was known for in college. He padded his 3-point stats early in the season (17 for 25 against Bakersfield, Sacred Heart and Northern Colorado), but was not good at all the last 15 games of the season against better competition...only 15 for 56, or 26.8%. He made 2 out of 6 yesterday, but most of them were wide open looks against a disinterested defense. I'm predicting he doesn't make 33% of his shots this season. I still think we were lucky to get Patton rather than him.


Lauri was the fastest to 100 3's in NBA history and in the end broke the Bulls 3 point rookie record even with multiple rest games to help their tank, he was also the first Bulls rookie in 18 years to have 1000 points and 500 rebounds. I would also like to say I was killed by the majority of this board for saying he would be a great offensive player.


He shot an average 36% from 3 (meaning he got the 100 3's due to sheer volume more than efficiency) and played on the 6th worst team in the NBA. Is he a disaster offensively? No, but 15 points on 43/36/84 is not a great offensive player especially on a terrible team that lacked offensive options for most of the season.


Interesting, so why didn't all of these other rookies on bad teams over the years put up the numbers he did? I'm also having trouble understanding why you're trying to use his rookie averages against my prediction that he will be a great offensive player, it's been a single season lol he has plenty of time to grow his game.


Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.

I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.


Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to offensive Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player then you may want to try a different sport to follow.
User avatar
khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]
Posts: 6414
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:00 am

Re: Around the NBA (non-Wolves talk)

Post by khans2k5 [enjin:6608728] »

BloopOracle wrote:
khans2k5 wrote:Because most rookies aren't given free reign to jack up 6-7 3's a game like he was? The top 3 rookies this year shot over 400 3's. He was 3rd at 434 and his competition had 10 whole games on him. Last year the highest was Buddy at 379 and then Murray at 344. The year before was D'Angelo at 370 and then a huge drop to Booker at 289. The year before that was even less with Mirotic at 313 as the number 1 volume guy. This is the very picture of putting up stats because of opportunity more than a credit to skill. Donovan Mitchell put up 550 three's this year because they had few other offensive options to go to. Volume is a result of opportunity and it doesn't signify quality as you suggest. It's just a different league that involves more and more chucking every year. He doesn't deserve extra credit just because he chucked up the most 3's early in the year.

I'm using his rookie numbers as a data point to point out that he's not really close to being a great offensive player and that the "quality" you are seeing was there was more due to opportunity than actually being good. You seem to suggest that his rookie accolades put him on this path to greatness by complaining you got killed for saying he would be a great offensive player. Well nothing about those accolades really have anything to do with quality of play. They're just counting stats so I'm having trouble understanding why you think they make your prediction any more valid at this point in time than when it was first made.


Yes I am suggesting that his rookie season is putting him on the path to Greatness that's what setting the rookie three-point Bulls record and putting up stats that only LeBron and Dario saric have done is. It's very telling that your argument is based around the fact that he put up good stats on a bad team, besides exceptions like Ben Simmons and Donovan Mitchell, that is what you're going to get 99% of the time unless you're one of those Debbie downers that tears down every promising rookie due to the fact that he wasn't playing on winning team? What exactly did you think would happen? In all honesty you if don't think putting up numbers only LeBron and one other player have doesnt put a rookie on the path to being a great offensive player than you may want to try a different sport to follow.


The other offensive player is Dario Saric and I don't know anyone who considers Saric a great offensive player. You're using Lebron and rookie records for one franchise out of 30 as your whole argument. Just wow.
Post Reply