Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #1

    Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

    Q: Are things finally settling down after getting traded twice in less than a year?

    A: It's definitely been a crazy year, starting off with finally getting traded from Indiana to Toronto. I had a great time there, great organization. Bryan Colangelo is unbelievable. Things just didn't go the way that we thought they would go.

    I knew that [trade to Miami was coming] for a while. Me and Bryan Colangelo have been almost best friends, so I knew it was coming the whole time. Basically he tried to make some things work for the team to make a run for it, but myself, [Chris] Bosh and [Jose] Calderon … obviously we didn't get off to a great start. Then your team has to try to figure out how to make the best out of it.

    It's been a long year, but I feel comfortable in this situation [in Miami] now. … Some people look at trades as devastating, but Indiana was a situation where I knew that the run was over two years ago. So it wasn't like I was shocked that I was traded. It basically was a mutual agreement that it was time the run was over.

    Q: Why was the run so short in Toronto?

    A: The Toronto organization was great to me and even the city was unbelievable. The affection I've gotten, you would have thought that I played there for the last 13 years. I would have thought that I would have gotten off to a better start … obviously things went wrong from the start.

    I think Bryan's thought process, with the way it was going, was to put himself in a great position to sign Bosh next [summer] and also bring some free agents in. We both came to the conclusion that the best move was to make that move to Miami.

    I think he cared so much about me as a person. It was a strange situation, because our relationship went so much further than any management person that I've ever been involved with, even Donnie Walsh. And people know how close me and Donnie [were]. … That's rare. That's rare when you have that type of relationship.

    We talked on the phone a lot, text messaged a lot. So I felt bad for him that it didn't really work. And I think he felt bad for me that it didn't work … It didn't work that way for the both of us. Miami was calling and I knew Miami was one of the teams interested in me even before I went to Toronto.

    Q: Are you paying attention to the things people are saying about how much you have left [at 30] and what you can and can't do any more?

    A: No. You take any player and you give 'em a knee injury … ask Kevin Garnett right now how he feels. You take any player's livelihood, which is his knee, and put any injury to it … it's going to be a process. And it's been one hell of a process for me.

    But I've finally gotten to the point where I feel like I'm over the hump with the knee situation. I think for people to really understand what I've been through, playing hurt [for Indiana], coming back and forth and knowing that our team's in a tough situation for so many different reasons as far as on-the-court and off-the-court stuff, and you're trying to be a bright spot for the team and you're sacrificing your health almost to the detriment of your career ... it was a very difficult situation to be in.

    I tore my meniscus twice [in Indiana] before I had surgery. So it was difficult. But I don't care what people say about whatever. I know what I can do and that's really what it is. You've got to get back totally healthy and go from there.

    I've had long talks with Coach Riley. He's seen a lot of [big men] and he has so much belief in what I can do. And that means a lot, too.

    Q: You still call him Coach?

    A: Still Coach. I still ask him, "What do you see, Coach, what do you see?" I talk to Coach Spoelstra and his staff, too. But I still ask him. A guy with his pedigree and his background, he's seen them all, he's coached them all. So when he gives his views of what you should be doing, that's very, very important to me.

    Q: So do you second-guess yourself now for playing hurt?

    A: Yeah. Especially the way things ended [in Indiana]. If it would have ended a different way, then I would have been a little bit happier about it. I look at some of the things that were said about me when I left Indiana, they kind of have people thinking a certain way about me, that I gave up on the team. And I didn't give up on the team.

    But obviously my relationship with Larry [Bird] was a tough one. And I don't feel like they really … knowing what they knew and it being documented what they knew about my knee and my knee situation and why I was in and out of the lineup, I didn't really feel like they had my back. When Donnie left, I knew my support left from the front office.

    I kind of beat myself up a lot about that, about not getting surgery when it first happened [in the 2006-07 season]. … The organization didn't really stand behind me. There's a lot of great people in that organization and a lot of great people in that city, but they didn't do the things that I felt like they should have. And that's how I knew my time was over.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-090411-12
    espn.com
    By: Marc Stein
    Last edited by Roaming Gnome; 04-12-2009, 01:33 PM. Reason: Just added the "by line" and where it's from...
    You, Never? Did the Kenosha Kid?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

    If only we had traded JO for Bynum when we had the chance. Could have killed numerous birds with one stone. We could have had a young powerful center capable of holding his own in the middle on both ends of the floor, done away with a huge attitude problem, and killed the chemistry of LA despite Kobe wanting JO to come there, and been closer to restoring the franchise more quickly with better fan support at least a year earlier. In retrospect, a no-brainer. At the time, we tried to take advantage of the position Kobe put LA in and capitalize by taking Odom, too. That must have woke Buss up enough that he reduced the deal to only Odom and we backed off.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

      I'm sure that's how it happened. Plus, Bynum has played just about 82 games in the past two seasons combined, which, with our training staff and injury history, would translate to about 50 games across three seasons.

      I sound like a jerk.

      EDIT: I was really hoping this article would never make it to this forum, but I guess it was inevitable.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

        He made almost $300,000 per game played over his last five years with the Pacers because he missed so many games with injuries(and that's counting the first year of his current 7-year contract, when he played 78 games - in years 2-5 of that contract, that figure was a lot higher, as he missed 20-41 games every year). I certainly feel indebted to him for "playing hurt" Since he's left, I've gradually become happier and happier he's gone as he's said more things to the media.
        Last edited by Choke Artist; 04-12-2009, 12:04 PM.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

          Originally posted by Brad8888 View Post
          If only we had traded JO for Bynum when we had the chance. Could have killed numerous birds with one stone. We could have had a young powerful center capable of holding his own in the middle on both ends of the floor, done away with a huge attitude problem, and killed the chemistry of LA despite Kobe wanting JO to come there, and been closer to restoring the franchise more quickly with better fan support at least a year earlier. In retrospect, a no-brainer. At the time, we tried to take advantage of the position Kobe put LA in and capitalize by taking Odom, too. That must have woke Buss up enough that he reduced the deal to only Odom and we backed off.

          For those who attack Brad8888's post and claim Bynum was not on the table, please provide proof of that with your post. I have read that claim and don't know what to think. If Bynum and garbage filler was offered for JO, we did miss an opportunity.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

            Larry (with Walsh) did everything JO wanted.

            They kept the team together after the brawl after JO, Ron and Jack asked to be kept together. They brought in JO's good buddy Al Harrington. They designated him "team leader" over and over both in the press and in the locker room.

            Yet over and over we hear about how JO didn't get a "fair shake" from Larry.

            I think it's time Jermaine start showing some of that "class" he was supposedly known for.
            “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

            “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

              Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
              For those who attack Brad8888's post and claim Bynum was not on the table, please provide proof of that with your post. I have read that claim and don't know what to think. If Bynum and garbage filler was offered for JO, we did miss an opportunity.
              I've been told over and over again by laker fans that Bynum was never EVER on the table.
              “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

              “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                There's no way Bynum and "garbage filler" were on the table. Bynum was on a rookie contract, whilst JO was being paid the max. That filler would have to have had a 15 million dollar contract.

                It's fairly obvious that Bird asked for both Odom and Bynum, and the Lakers turned him down. No use dwelling on it now.

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                  I'm sooooooooooooooo glad he's gone.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                    He was a good player for us when he was here. Now he's older and is injury bound. We definitly had to get rid of him and get new players and turn our franchise around.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                      I don't know what the hell JO wanted. Leadership role handed to him and he couldn't handle it. Max contract for a non-max player. Dude whines too much.
                      The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                        Originally posted by SoupIsGood View Post
                        But obviously my relationship with Larry [Bird] was a tough one. And I don't feel like they really … knowing what they knew and it being documented what they knew about my knee and my knee situation and why I was in and out of the lineup, I didn't really feel like they had my back. When Donnie left, I knew my support left from the front office.

                        I kind of beat myself up a lot about that, about not getting surgery when it first happened [in the 2006-07 season]. … The organization didn't really stand behind me. There's a lot of great people in that organization and a lot of great people in that city, but they didn't do the things that I felt like they should have. And that's how I knew my time was over.

                        http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailyd...dime-090411-12
                        This is what I have always suspected as to why JONeal wasn't moved earlier.....he was one of DW's players that was "protected from on high" and therefore placed a very high premium on any trade involving him. It didn't surprise me one bit that JONeal was moved once Bird got a decent deal for him.
                        Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                          I am fairly certain Bynum was the hold up on that LA trade, not Odom. Back than according to all the leaks if I remember LA was trying to offer us Odom + Crittendon, pick, filler.... etc. I feel fairly confident if there ever was a Bynum centered offer TPTB would have ran with it. That was back when they could have packaged Bynum and Kwame as contract relief.
                          "As a bearded man, i was very disappointed in Love. I am gathering other bearded men to discuss the status of Kevin Love's beard. I am motioning that it must be shaved."

                          - ilive4sports

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                            Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                            Larry (with Walsh) did everything JO wanted.

                            They kept the team together after the brawl after JO, Ron and Jack asked to be kept together. They brought in JO's good buddy Al Harrington. They designated him "team leader" over and over both in the press and in the locker room.

                            Yet over and over we hear about how JO didn't get a "fair shake" from Larry.

                            I think it's time Jermaine start showing some of that "class" he was supposedly known for.
                            You know, I still think the team doctors botched JO's knee injury several times and either put him out when he wasn't ready or advised him to train in a manner that threatened to make his injury worse. There, I think JO has a legit belief (and keep in mind, these are the same doctors that took seven seasons to figure out Jonathan Bender should have never been drafted in the first place.)

                            But you bring up an excellent point. The Harrington move was clearly made to appease JO. They wanted him to be the leader so they gave him one of "his" guys. In retrospect, a fairly dumb FO move, but the logic made more sense at the time. JO can complain all he wants - and I won't hold it against him - but the FO tried to accommodate him the best they could, even at the expense of bettering the team sometimes.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Interesting JO Interview (regrets playing hurt here, mentions lack of support in Pacer FO)

                              Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
                              Larry (with Walsh) did everything JO wanted.

                              They kept the team together after the brawl after JO, Ron and Jack asked to be kept together. They brought in JO's good buddy Al Harrington. They designated him "team leader" over and over both in the press and in the locker room.

                              Yet over and over we hear about how JO didn't get a "fair shake" from Larry.

                              I think it's time Jermaine start showing some of that "class" he was supposedly known for.
                              Larry's first major act with the Pacers was to lie to JO. I don't care that JO doesn't have input into who the coach is and I don't care how much he is paid. The JO - Bird relationship was bad from that point forward. And I don't blame JO one bit for that. If my boss straight up lies to me for his benefit, then I will not have any loyalty to him - period. He may be well within his "rights" but there will be zero trust in the relatinoship from my part and I'll be looking to move on.

                              JO was paid his market value. The Pacers didn't do him any favors by signing him to that contract (evidensed by them lying). It wasn't charity. Within the NBA's flawed system JO earned that contract. Someone was giving it to him (yes I know it was a little more since he re-signed)

                              They took a player that relied on quickness and finesse and asked him to play like Shaq. They paired him with a nutcase. They asked or allowed him to play hurt constantly damaging him, his trade value, his reputation (that is JO's beef, IMO), and team chemistry. And they held on to him for 2-3 years to long.

                              I've never seen any evidence or reports that the team brought in Harrington to appease JO. If they did, it is even more evidence that managment is responsible for this mess and have mismanaged the process the entire way.

                              I don't dispute that JO may be a prima-donna, but that is not exactly a rarity in the NBA. IMO, JO himself has little to do with the teams current situation. The teams complete mismanagment of JO (and everyone else) is the reason we are here and cheering a sub .500 season.
                              Last edited by rm1369; 04-12-2009, 02:39 PM.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                              Working...
                              X