|
|
Post by idle on Apr 6, 2009 0:21:04 GMT -5
I need Hill or Kidd bad - I can't take this losing.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinez on Apr 6, 2009 10:08:34 GMT -5
stfu
|
|
|
|
Post by martinez on Apr 6, 2009 10:22:48 GMT -5
i'll get him and own this league
|
|
|
|
Post by martinez on Apr 6, 2009 11:25:21 GMT -5
kidd in 94, Garnett in 95 and Kobe in 96.
I win.
|
|
|
|
Post by mtg on Apr 6, 2009 15:27:57 GMT -5
I'm getting Kidd
|
|
|
|
Post by crazymike2021 on Apr 8, 2009 22:28:41 GMT -5
Kidd is going to be a key player for someone
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Apr 14, 2009 16:08:12 GMT -5
Jason Kidd has hired an agent and thrown his name into the draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by mops on Apr 14, 2009 16:42:35 GMT -5
I'm getting Kidd or Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by crazymike2021 on Apr 14, 2009 20:12:19 GMT -5
Some one is
|
|
|
|
Post by gp on Apr 15, 2009 2:29:06 GMT -5
Love him
|
|
|
|
Post by House on Apr 15, 2009 11:37:15 GMT -5
Funny, I would not go anywhere near him with the #1 pick if I had him since I have ET and Mash and Spree (lol). And I love Kidd as a player (n/h).
If I got #1, I'd seriously have to consider trading down for a big man. Or, I could pick Dyess.
What am I saying? I'm not going to get #1. :\
|
|
|
|
Post by CC on Apr 15, 2009 11:38:26 GMT -5
you'll draft him #1 then deal ET for a big man.
|
|
|
|
Post by House on Apr 15, 2009 11:40:58 GMT -5
I mean, that's not a bad idea either...
|
|
|
|
Post by House on Apr 15, 2009 11:41:19 GMT -5
But I won't get #1, so it's a moot point. :\
|
|
|
|
Post by ashes on Apr 15, 2009 11:48:03 GMT -5
I don't see why you wouldn't just draft McDyess with #1...
|
|
