Bullets Forever: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Has Kentucky Improved Since the Non-Conference Season?

Ricky Rubio staying in Europe doesn't automatically vindicate the Wizards

So how do I feel about Ricky Rubio remaining in Europe instead of coming to the NBA?  I don't know. 

I'll be honest: I didn't know what the heck was going on for most of the time.  Every time the situation seemed resolved, it wasn't.  Every time Rubio seemed to lean one way, he didn't.  While one can argue that the nature of the uncertainty is enough of an indictment on Rubio himself for the Wizards to stay away from having to deal with that drama, the unbelievably unreliable European media is to blame for a lot of this as well.  Throw in Minnesota's unique situation -- they drafted a point guard right after Rubio, they stripped down their team, they're rebuilding, etc. -- the difficulty with the buyout and several other factors, and there's a lot more to this debacle that simply Rubio's own immaturity and indecision. 

But enough about that, what about the Wizards?  The obvious reaction to the news is that this vindicates Ernie Grunfeld's decision to pass on drafting him for the surer thing of Randy Foye and Mike Miller.  Is there an element of truth to this?  Certainly.  If we assume that there would have been some sort of difficulty in bringing Rubio on board and/or trading his rights for something of value, then yes, with the roster currently in the state that it's in, it would have been a very risky move when risk may not be the best thing for the team's psyche

However I'd say there's too much unknown and forgotten here that makes Grunfeld's vindication a little more complicated.

Star-divide

Point 1: Grunfeld didn't trade Rubio, he traded the fifth pick

Recall that the Wizards made their trade with Minnesota two days before draft day, not on draft day when Rubio actually slipped.  While Ernie is paid to have some foresight, there's no way he could have guessed with 100% certainty that Rubio would indeed be around by the fifth pick.  (This applies to David Kahn too; he could have taken Rubio only because he felt like he had to, not because he had him highly ranked on Minnesota's draft board). 

Therefore, to say Grunfeld decided between Rubio and the Miller/Foye package is misleading.  In reality, Grunfeld decided to take the Miller/Foye package instead of having the chance to select Rubio or anyone else.  You can't say honestly that Grunfeld was thinking to himself "you know, I'd rather have Randy Foye and Mike Miller than Ricky Rubio."  In reality, he was saying "I'd rather have Randy Foye and Mike Miller than be in a position where I'm deciding between several prospects, which may include Rubio if teams get scared by him."  

You could look at this one of two ways.  You could say that Grunfeld knew Rubio was going to be a difficult sell and could very well stay in Europe, which means he ruled him out and figured he wouldn't draft him anyway if he kept the fifth pick.  In this case, getting something for a pick he wasn't going to use anyway is a good thing.  However, you could also say that, by making the trade two days in advance, Grunfeld took his myriad options away from himself.  On draft day, he could have selected Rubio, traded the pick, selected someone else, etc, and those options may have potentially yielded a better return than Foye/Miller.  We won't know the answer to that question definitively until we see how the season plays out.   

Point 2: Ernie would have handled things differently than David Kahn if he drafted Rubio

I'm not going to sit here and say Kahn handled things the wrong way.  He was put in an unbelievably difficult situation (though you could say he did it to himself), and I have no doubt he worked as hard as possible to get Rubio to come play in the NBA right away.  But if Ernie Grunfeld was put in Kahn's situation, you can be sure that he wouldn't have done several things Kahn did, including:

  • Draft another point guard right after Rubio.  It's unclear how much drafting Jonny Flynn affected Rubio's decision, but it probably added an unnecessary layer to an already complicated situation.  Now, the Wizards do already have Gilbert Arenas, and Rubio's agent has said he wouldn't have wanted to play alongside him.  But it's far different to come from the US and play with an NBA all-star that could potentially move to SG more easily than to have to compete for minutes with a six-foot rookie point guard.
  • Announce to the world that he definitively did not intend to trade Rubio.  Kahn essentially told teams, "Don't bother with your trade proposals, I'm not trading him anyway."  I'm sure Ernie would have left the situation much more open, which might have improved the offers. 
  • Done nothing else to try to improve his team.  Even with Rubio in tow, Ernie would have certainly tried to make other moves to improve the ballclub for next year.  He's sensitive to the wishes of his coach, owner and star player, and the Wizards had several tradeable assets to give to other teams to upgrade the roster. 
  • I'd guess with several other pressing matters affecting his ballclub, Ernie would not have directly negotiated with Rubio's Spanish teams as much as Kahn.  I'm not sure what kind of affect this would have had.

Some of those factors would have made it easier to convince Rubio to come here.  Some of them would have made it harder.  Regardless, the larger point is that Ernie would not have handled the situation the same way as David Kahn, meaning we can't really say whether Rubio would have made the same decisions he made. 

Point 3: Minnesota's rebuilding and is in a less visible place than Washington

Again, this isn't to definitively say that Rubio would have played in DC and not Minnesota, but the very fact that we have to ask ourselves this question means we can't just unilaterally pat Grunfeld on the back.  Maybe Dan Fegan's comments about Rubio playing alongside Arenas were just hot air, and Rubio wouldn't have minded.  Maybe Rubio was ready to play right away.  The fact that Rubio won't play right away for Minnesota doesn't get us any closer to answering these questions than we were on draft day.  We can have opinions, but we won't have any additional facts

It's also worth noting that Minnesota doesn't need Rubio as much as the Wizards needed him (or, more accurately, some value for the fifth pick).  The Timberwolves are committed to a long-term plan, and having Rubio aboard doesn't change that.  They aren't planning on being a winning team for a couple years, and even if they were, Miller and Foye were not in their long-term plans.  The Wizards, however, were under pressure to get someone who could help them win next year.  Perhaps if Rubio is the pick, the Wizards would have been more aggressive in getting him to come play right away.

Why am I spelling this all out?

My only point is this: Ernie should not be judged on his Minnesota trade based on Ricky Rubio.  Rubio was arguably not an option for the Wizards, and even if he was somehow picked by them, we have no guarantee that this whole debacle would have played out the same way.  Michael Lee hit it perfectly with this sentence.

The only question now -- which can be answered somewhat this season -- is, did Grunfeld get enough for No. 5? Either way, it's really not worth debating Foye and Miller vs. nothing this season.

I don't think Rubio going to Europe should have any affect on how we view the Foye/Miller trade.  The way we evaluate the trade is to see whether Foye and Miller help the Wizards win a lot of games.  If they do, the trade was good.  If they don't, then it wasn't.  Ricky Rubio has nothing to do with it.

0 recs  |  Comment 27 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

This is on point

My gripe with this trade was that I felt like the Wizards could have gotten more, not necessarily the loss of a shot at Rubio. Still, Grunfeld is looking like Jerry West right about now compared to David Kahn, who has already put out press releases blaming Rubio,

twitter.com/rashad20

by rashad20 on Sep 1, 2009 4:34 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

i dispute that we could have gotten more

but we have no way of debating that.

still i’m surprised that’s your take on it. i hope you respect how much value EG got out of the #5 pick.

i think jonathanjoseph sums it up when he says that trading for randy foye is like picking up a #5 draft pick on top of everything else we got. i wasn’t that excited about the trade when i first heard about it, because i had kind of lazily written off foye, but even then i felt like EG couldn’t have gotten much more.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Sep 3, 2009 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with some of this, but not all

My viewpoint is this: I am going to be a Wizards fan this year, in five years, and in ten years. So, I wanted Rubio. I don’t judge the trade to be a winner if Miller and Foye are great for the Wizards this year. I want to see what this trade nets the Wizards over time. If, over time, Rubio proves to be a terrific, all star caliber point guard, the trade has to be viewed with that in mind.

by disgrunted on Sep 1, 2009 5:23 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Wilbon

So, basically, Michael Wilbon should stop writing columns like this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/25/AR2009062504743.html

And then say things like this:

http://twitter.com/MikeWilbonSaid/status/3690138515

… Kinda. Sure, both came in different contexts … but Grunfeld made the right move regardless.

Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.

by Truth About It on Sep 1, 2009 5:41 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I've been having a discussion about this all day on Twitter

But I have no problem with Wilbon. The two opinions are not mutually exclusive. He can easily craft an coherent argument that says the Wizards would have been in better position to get Rubio to come to the NBA this year, for many of the reasons stated in this post.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Sep 1, 2009 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yea, but ...

It’s like Grunfeld says, “I’m going to make a move to win now” … which he did, and Wilbon just ignores that principle and operates on predicting future regret. Yes, it’s in his right to do so, but it seems like a waste of time.

Representing DC with Wizards & Stuff - Truth About It.net and Bullets Forever.

by Truth About It on Sep 1, 2009 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why must Wilbon opine based on Ernie's timeline?

Why can’t Wilbon think that Ernie’s timeline makes sense unless Ricky Rubio is available?

I don’t like how Wilbon argued his opinion (Arenas is a shooting guard anyway, the Wizards don’t have any big men), but I think the opinion is valid.

A waste of time would be if Wilbon said something factually incorrect, like the Wizards could have paid for more of the buyout than Minnesota, or if he said Rubio would prefer DC to Minnesota.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Sep 1, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree with:
The way we evaluate the trade is to see whether Foye and Miller help the Wizards win a lot of games. If they do, the trade was good. If they don’t, then it wasn’t. Ricky Rubio has nothing to do with it.

Rubio is the person every critic of the trade threw out there. You can’t evaluate the trade in a vacuum — to fairly evaluate the trade you have to look at how things play out and try to figure out what else the Wiz could have realistically done. That’s probably picking Rubio, Curry or Hill, but most likely picking Rubio and then trading him. Would that really have gotten us much more than Foye and Miller (and dumping useless contracts)? I doubt it. If Rubio, Curry or Hill become stars and Foye/Miller doesn’t really work out well, then you can criticize the trade. If all three of those guys are worse than Foye+Miller, then you have to praise the trade. If Curry is the next Reggie Miller and Rubio never leaves Europe, you could criticize the pick, but you’d have to acknowledge that you’d have botched it too.

by steadyhand on Sep 1, 2009 9:30 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Except that

Grunfeld had no way of knowing for certain that Rubio would be there at #5. If we’re going to talk about other options the Wizards had, we should evaluate this thing based on the information that was available at the time.

Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.

by Jon L on Sep 1, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions   1 recs

No

You guys are trying to have your cake and eat it too. On draft night, what was the photo that greeted us all? A big photo of Ricky Rubio with a sad “we could have had this guy” banner. What were the debates over the next few days? The value of Rubio against the value of Foye/Miller whether as a player or his rights.

So I’m sorry, the “we didn’t know Rubio would slip” argument can go both ways. Those who were happy with the trade trotted it out on draft night. It seems strange that the pro Rubio contingent is now using the same basis for argument.

Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!

by ledellforlife on Sep 1, 2009 10:53 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

There's a difference, though

between saying “wouldn’t it have been great to have a chance to draft Rubio” and “the trade was a good decision because Rubio will be playing in Spain for another two years.”

Ridiculous Upside, where developing talent and winning are not mutually exclusive.

by Jon L on Sep 2, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

i agree with ledell

even if evans, hill, rubio, curry, or whoever is an nba all-star straight away from day 1, this trade still looks good to me because the likelihood of that happening is so low. whether they are all-stars 4 years from now seems irrelevant to me. the only way we’re reasonably upset about a win-now agenda is basically if (1) we think the guy we passed on is likely to be (not just could be) a perennial all-star, or (2) we think we got pretty much nothing back in this trade and it doesn’t help us win now.

i think EG would disagree on both points, as would many others, including myself. so i certainly don’t think EG needs to be vindicated, as under that light, the trade he made looks good now, very good.

and yes rubio choosing to stay in europe has nothing to do with it, but for different reasons entirely. i could make the argument that rubio needs to be vindicated in terms of all the excessive hype he’s been generating by becoming an mvp candidate in his career, but i won’t because it’s all conjecture at this point. nobody involved needs to be vindicated, other than minnesota’s GM.

what i will do is reference jonathanjoseph’s post and point out how much EG got for the #5 pick.

what more do people want?

ricky rubio apparently, still.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Sep 3, 2009 8:00 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you're saying that it's false to say Rubio has nothing to do with it

… And saying that instead Rubio should have a little bit to do with it because he was one of the possibilities for that #5 pick … then I’ll agree and cede that point. “Nothing” was a bit too far. Clearly Rubio has a little something to do with how the trade is evaluated because he was a contingency.

Otherwise, I lost you a bit. I’m not posting this to continue to criticize the trade, I’m posting this mostly just to respond to the point of view that says “See, look, Rubio’s staying in Europe, therefore the Wizards are geniuses.” My feeling is, if you liked the trade on draft day, you should like the trade now, but you shouldn’t like the trade any extra (if that makes much sense). If you didn’t like the trade then, then I don’t think this news should change your opinion all that much.

It’d be interesting to put a range of opinions of the trade on a spectrum. Here’s my best shot.

-“I liked the trade because we got something for an unknown”/“I don’t like the trade because we did the safe thing instead of taking a risk” – No change in opinion. Rubio remains an unknown. Any of the draft picks were, to some degree, “unknown.” Other trade options were unknown. Rubio even being there was an unknown on draft day, which is when the trade was made (which I think was Jon L’s point).

-“I liked the trade because I think Foye and Miller are better players than Ricky Rubio”/I hate the trade because Ricky Rubio is way better than Foye and Miller long-term" – No change, because Rubio’s still the same basketball player he was in June.

-“I liked the trade because we got guys who can help us this year more than Rubio”/I hate the trade because I am so smitten with Rubio and believe he could have helped us this year" – I suppose this might change now, but again, it’s tough for me to tell whether things would have gone down differently if Ernie, the Wizards and the city of DC were the other option for Rubio than a rebuilding Timberwolves team than also drafted another point guard. Again, not saying Kahn did anything wrong, just saying the Timberwolves are not analogous to the Wizards. They can wait, the Wizards can’t. They have little organizational stability, the Wizards do. They are a lottery team going nowhere in the near future, we aren’t.

-“I liked the trade because we got the best offer we could have”/“I hated the trade because we could have received more for the asset” – Mostly no change in opinion, unless the saga made you come to the realization that Rubio wasn’t quite as prized as it seemed.

I dunno, does that sum everyone up? I probably missed some opinions on there.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Sep 2, 2009 12:15 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

No I think thats good

My point (which Iost myself) is that many were claiming on draft night “oh god, we could have had Rubio.” Your point on draft night was “did we get value.”

Its always Roger Mason (Jr.) time!

by ledellforlife on Sep 2, 2009 11:53 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

More or less

I was kind of a combo between ‘Rubio is overrated’ and ‘Rubio will stay in Europe for at least a few years’. Both of those are unknowns, but I feel like the latter has became more solidified. Any move like this is the result of predicting unknowns (what GM’s are paid for) — the the extent that reality confirms the prediction, it’s a good decision.

For everyone saying Rubio will be useless the next two years anyway: that doesn’t support the argument that he’s a star in the making. If he’s useless at 19 and 20, how good do you think he’ll get? All of the players that were in the NBA at those ages who became great later were pretty good by age 20. And he’ll still have to learn the NBA game when (if) he comes. If he’s really going to become a stud, then losing him at 19 and 20 does hurt.

by steadyhand on Sep 5, 2009 1:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still think they they are vindicated.

Grunfeld got a lot of heat when it was found we could have gotten Rubio. The bottom line is I still believe that the Wizards + Foye + Miller > Wizards + Rubio.

I don’t think the Wizards get the buzz for this year if they just have Rubio because he wouldn’t be an impact player this year if he even somehow signed.

by Kuruption on Sep 1, 2009 10:10 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

Vindicated

We got Foye and Miller both as players and trade chips. We can offer both talent and expiring contracts along with a pick to acquire players. If this is our go for it year we have all the assets to make a big move.
Rubio was never going to come to dc and that would kill his trade value.. No reason to pine about what a guy could do in 5 years.

by forthepeople on Sep 2, 2009 2:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

For the record, I liked and like the trade

But it’s probably more “fair” to assess it against how good Curry and Hill turn out to be (and how good Miller and Foye are) rather than the fact that the Rubio situation blew up.

by RamV on Sep 2, 2009 5:27 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes, Grunfeld either has or will be vindicated...there should be no question

Wilbon argued that Rubio, not the 5th pick, was the prize that Grunfeld passed on. And either way, it’s not a good argument.

NO rookie does this franchise any good given its window of opportunity, and even if Rubio had come over now…thinking that he would be any sort of difference maker before his 21st birthday is wishful thinking.

In the trade Grunfeld:
1) Got 2 starting caliber players that filled holes on the roster (3 pt shooting, backup PG, size in the backcourt)
2) Gets a guy in Foye who seems to still have upside, perhaps as much upside as any single rookie we could have drafted (will Stephen Curry end up better than Foye? Maybe…)
3) Saved $3M in cap room this season and $12M overall which would have gone to the rookie which turned into Oberto (and cap space going forward)

AND

4) Got rid of $18 Million in bad contracts ($30M total if you add the contract for the draft pick) that will allow the Wizards the flexibility to resign important players.

AND gave up nothing of consequence but the 5th pick.

Let’s say, for arguments sake, that Grunfeld kept the 5th pick, chose Stephen Curry, and Curry becomes an all-star by his 4th season, which would be as quickly as practically possible.

That means that the Wizards are:
1) Weaker in 09-10 because Miller/Foye >> rookie Curry
2) Likely to lose Haywood in 2010 with $8M less cap room because of the Songaila and draft choice contracts.
3) By the time Curry becomes an all-star in 2013, Jamison is retired and Butler is 33.

Let there be NO QUESTION that over the next 3-4 years, this trade has increased the talent, depth and roster/cap flexibility at the cost of picking up Stephen Curry/Jordan Hill who are far from sure things.

Miller and Foye could have the worst years of their careers and it would still be a good trade. This trade is up there with Grunfeld’s greatest heists and Minnesota GM David Kahn has a ton of egg on his face right now.

(Oh, and the Rubio hype has gotten beyond ridiculous. 4 teams passed the opportunity to draft him, he’s 18 years old and would get physically manhandled in the NBA for years, doesn’t have a jumpshot yet and doesn’t fit with a ball-dominant Arenas.)

by JonathanJoseph on Sep 2, 2009 1:11 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

4 teams passed on him?

What is that supposed to mean? 30 teams passed on Arenas. I’ve actually never heard a professional sports journalist say that he doesn’t believe Rubio will be good. I hear it from fans, but never from anyone in sports journalism or the league. The opinions those people have of him range between career starter and Hall-of-Famer.

"One-on-one? You can't." -Gilbert Arenas
JC Bandwagon all day!

by kseandoyle on Sep 2, 2009 1:40 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

what does 30 teams passing on arenas have to do with anything?

if randy foye and mike miller both die tragically in a drag racing incident on GW parkway then based on much of the logic i’m seeing thrown out here, we would have to say EG made a bad trade.

right now, in the here and now, this trade looks great.

by DarrellWalkerFan on Sep 3, 2009 6:50 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

One point that hasn't been mentioned

Is that Rubio staying over in Europe for two more years could make the trade worse for the Wizards, for two reasons.

First, would a team rather have Rubio on a rookie contract when he is 18 through 22 years old, or 20 through 24 years old? Obviously the latter. Second, by staying over in Europe and improving, with the Wizards retaining his rights, Rubio becomes a trading chip with increasing value. If you believe, as I do, that the Wizards need to make a big move for Bosh or someone of that caliber to make a jump to championship contender status, the Wizards need assets like the draft rights to Ricky Rubio in order to facilitate a trade. Trading Randy Roye instead of Rubio won’t be as enticing to teams.

by disgrunted on Sep 2, 2009 7:59 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Interesting perspective

That’s sacrificing the present for the future, but has some merit. Of course, it assumes Rubio fill fulfill his potential, which is rarely the case.

by steadyhand on Sep 5, 2009 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah -except

if Rubio stays in Spain for 3-years, he no longer falls under the Rookie Salary Scale…. and he can command whatever the market will bear….

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Sep 5, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's simpler than that
Rubio’s own immaturity and indecision.
an indictment on Rubio

Mike – You’re reading too many complicated ideas into this situation.

1. Ernie saw who was projected to be available at the 5th pick and decided that Foye and Miller were better than (take your pick): Hasheem Thabeet, Tyreke Evans, Jonny Flynn, Stephen Curry or Jordan Hill. Ricky Rubio was, by all accounts the second or third best player available, and should not have been available at number 5

2. Had the Wizards drafted Rubio, they would be in the same position that Minnesota is in now. The basic fact is that had Rubio been drafted 2 or 3, he would be playing in the NBA this year. His salary would have been sufficient for him to pay off his exorbitant buy out with the Spanish club within the two-year timeframe they required – and he still would have had money left to put food on the table. Being drafted 5th (whether it was by Minnesota or by Washington, or by ANY other team) means that his salary slot, alone was not enough to pay off DKV Joventut.

You may argue that Washington is a bigger market, and that perhaps Rubio could have received more endorsement deals here – or that Ernie Grunfeld is a better negotiator than David Kahn and may have been able to garner a lower buy out from DKV Joventut – but all that is speculation….. and the fact remains that Ernie had to make a decision based on what he knew at the time.

AND Ricky Rubio had to make a tough decision as well. Pay out of his own pocket for the “privilege”of playing in the NBA, or go back to Spain and wait another two years. How many of us could afford to pay, so that we could work?

Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......

by Rook6980 on Sep 2, 2009 10:19 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

I'm still not convinced this is simply a math problem

Because then why would Rubio come out and say negative stuff about Minnesota, or Memphis, like he did? Why would it matter if he went to Memphis when he’d earn more money anyway? Why would he prop Sacramento, who had the fourth pick, more than any other team?

I’m sure it was a factor, but it wasn’t the only factor. There’s a human element here, as well as the “I want to play for the right team” element. If New York has the fifth pick, I’m convinced Rubio comes here because he’d find the team more desirable. I also think DC is more desirable a situation than Minnesota, and he waited until the last minute to change his mind about Minnesota.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Sep 2, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Washington Wizards.
Start posting about the Wizards »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Mrlogo_small
Don't blow it up.  Disassemble.
Mriggs_cartoon_2__small
My dream trades

Recent FanPosts

Chesspiece-web_small
JaVale "Patty Flippin" McGee
Homer_small
Would you be willing to stand pat just for one more chance at lEbron James and the Cavaliers?
Unseld_small
Keep Brendan Haywood
Small
2010 Draft Possibilities
Bullets-forever_4458_small
The official trade rumors thread (Updated 1/22)
Screen-capture-15_small
What Would You Do?
Small
Trade Talked about on NBA TV ( J.R. Smith)
Small
It is time for a change.

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Lead editors

Bullets-forever_4458_small Mike Prada

Peytontrophy_small JakeTheSnake

Mriggs_cartoon_2__small Rook6980

Contributing editors

Big_small Truth About It

Contributing writers

Addingmachine_small bwoodsxyz