Sage. Schultz is fine, but wasn't a need and we overpaid if we're saying this draft is strong -- BULLET IN BOARD

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:46 18/09/24 Wed
Author: Flumpus
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 1.152.29.138
Subject: Sage. Schultz is fine, but wasn't a need and we overpaid if we're saying this draft is strong
In reply to: Rocket surgeon 's message, "No arguments from me there" on 20:54 17/09/24 Tue

I have no issues with him as a player and think he will only improve and be great. Not his problem that we paid what we paid, so absolutely not barracking for him to fail. But handy smalls providing high pressure but no positional versatility isn't a great buy imv at that price point.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

*sage = agree (NT) -- Flumpus, 12:47 18/09/24 Wed

Forum timezone: GMT+9
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.