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

Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 2
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 template Next
  • #1

    Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

    Surprise surprise there is more on the Artest situation, but I am posting this because of the Brezec discussion. It is in the middle of thre article


    This silence can't be golden
    By Peter May | November 14, 2004

    What does Larry Bird think of Ron Artest's recent sabbatical? He's not saying. But given that this was a guy who came out of traction to play a game, we can pretty much assume what he has said behind closed doors.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    That's where Bird was holed up Friday, on the longest telephone call in history. The Pacers president of basketball operations has resolutely refused to comment publicly on Artest's two-game timeout and the changing-by-the-day reasons for it. He has left coach Rick Carlisle and president/CEO Donnie Walsh to speak to the situation. You'd have to think he has Artest's face on a golf ball and has whipped out a titanium driver and headed to the first tee.

    Artest returned to the Indiana lineup Friday night after missing two games. Why did he miss two games? Carlisle said Artest was benched for conduct that "compromised the integrity of the team." Carlisle left it at that on Day One. Artest subsequently replied that he didn't know the meaning of the word "integrity."

    It then leaked out from Artest that he was tired and needed a break. This was the same guy who, in Slam Magazine recently, made an after-the-fact impassioned appeal to be on the Olympic team. Gee, if USA Basketball had taken him up on his offer, the Pacers might have been without Artest until March. Artest also hinted that one of the reasons he was tired was the work he was doing on a CD that is due out Nov. 23. (ESPN mentioned that date at least four times in its "SportsCenter" report Thursday.) Guess where the Celtics will be on the 23d? In Indiana.

    Predictably, Artest got skewered from coast to coast, with a few exceptions. The New York Post's Pete Vecsey said Carlisle mishandled things, and Bill Walton, in an e-chat on ESPN, said, "One question that screams out at me -- why didn't Rick Carlisle simply say, `no,' and try and talk him out of it?" Maybe because Carlisle knows Artest as well as anyone.

    But, for the most part, Artest was easy fodder because of his combustible past. It sort of reminded me of Bette Davis's line in "All About Eve" when she first lays eyes on a very young, very attractive Marilyn Monroe at a cocktail party: "She looks like she might burn down a plantation."

    And that's what gave this story some legs. In hoopese, Artest has priors. There have been numerous suspensions and incidents. He's not David Robinson. But, in an attempt to explain himself, he largely made things worse.

    In a chat Friday with ESPN.com, he said he "did it the wrong way . . . I wish I could have done it a little differently." Done what differently? He mentioned possible retirement if the Pacers won the NBA title, even though he has $29 million coming his way. (In other words, forget about it.) He said if the Pacers had granted his wish, he would have been gone for a month or so "and not worried about the pay." Continued...

    Asked if he wanted the Pacers to keep him, Artest said, "I love the Pacers. I like the organization. I like the team. But just as much as I like Indiana, I've got to be able to show people what's me. I can't lie to people. This is Ron Artest. I was in a studio all summer and I came back and had 31 [points] in my first game. You have to accept Ron Artest the way he is. And, if not, that's OK."

    ADVERTISEMENT

    It's not exactly a trade secret that the Pacers explored moving Artest over the summer, which speaks to their own discomfort with him. Nothing came of it. There is a won't-go-away rumor of Indiana dealing Artest to Sacramento for Peja Stojakovic because (a) they're both All-Stars, (b) they're both unhappy or distracting, and (c) their salaries match.

    But Sacramento -- and everyone else -- knows about Artest and what a handful he can be. Maybe that's why Bird was so conspicuous in his silence; you don't want to devalue your own players.

    Then again, anyone who knows Bird has to know how he feels about all this. And everyone knows about Artest. You have to take the whole package, which includes an excellent basketball player with, unfortunately, more baggage than Kate Winslet had on the Titanic.




    Brezec's prospects have expanded

    The leading candidate for Most Improved Player of the Year was in town Friday night. The expansion Charlotte Bobcats feel they got lucky with center Primoz Brezec, who was left unprotected by the Pacers in the expansion draft.

    In three seasons with the Pacers, Brezec appeared in 62 games, a total of 343 minutes. Nonetheless, Larry Bird tried to keep Brezec on the protected list until the very end, when he decided to not risk losing Reggie Miller.

    "All the time, Larry was telling me, `Don't worry, we're going to protect you,' " Brezec said. "Then he called me and said, `We're scared they're going to take Reggie.' I can understand why they did it. If it's between me and him, you've got to protect Reggie. He is the franchise."

    The Bobcats figured something was up when Indiana offered enticements not to take Brezec. That's usually a giveaway. And once they got a glimpse of the 7-foot-1-inch Slovenian, they quickly signed him to an extension. Next year, and in 2006-07, Brezec will earn $2.75 million. That, my friends, is a bargain if Brezec continues to improve, which he likely will because he's going to get the time and he is a hard worker.

    Said Bobcats coach/general manager Bernie Bickerstaff, "He's 7 feet. He can shoot. He has a great work ethic. If he falls on his face, I can live with that." Continued...


    Brezec was never included on any of the Pacers' playoff rosters but he was always a fixture working out before games.

    ADVERTISEMENT

    "There are a collection of guys who work like that, take a lot of shots before games -- he's one of those guys," said Celtics coach Doc Rivers. "He scares the hell out of me."

    Brezec said he was happy in Indiana, but, with no place to go there, is even happier in Charlotte.

    "It's all about getting in the right place at the right time," he said. "I think Charlotte is the best thing that ever happened to me."


    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

    Ah Good, If it was a choice between Reggie and Brezec. Screw Brezec

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

      So why couldn't they have tried to make a deal offering incentives not to take Reggie?

      Would Charlotte really been that stupid to take Reggie Miller?

      A good portion of the forum is not exactly fretting over the fact that Reggie is injured and relegated to the bench right now.

      Altho if the Pacers weren't going to play Brezec anyway then leaving him unprotected was the right thing to do (for Brezec).

      -Bball
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

        Originally posted by Bball
        So why couldn't they have tried to make a deal offering incentives not to take Reggie?

        Would Charlotte really been that stupid to take Reggie Miller?

        A good portion of the forum is not exactly fretting over the fact that Reggie is injured and relegated to the bench right now.

        Altho if the Pacers weren't going to play Brezec anyway then leaving him unprotected was the right thing to do (for Brezec).

        -Bball
        Exactly.

        What we had to offer, besides money, was our first round pick.

        I wonder if the Pacers offered the pick? Then, of course, had we given away the pick as incentive not to take Reggie, there was the question of James Jones also then being left unprotected. So we might have had to lose the pick and James Jones to keep Primoz.


        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

          We knew this was comin when we gave Reg his last contract. I continue to be shocked that there wasn't a poison pill in Reg's contract. Seems logical to me. In fact, when Reggie was negotiating, this was an issue I brought up repeatedly.

          I've been very disappointed with DW about this one. It's stupid for us to waste a protected slot on a guy that's not a part of our future.
          This space for rent.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

            If the decision became the first-rounder (Harrison) vs. Brezec, then I guess I can live with it.

            Had we not lost Byron Scott in an embarassing way, DW might've taken the risk of leaving Reggie unprotected. It's hard to blame him.

            I thought Brezec was better than Pollard, but I'm not sure Brezec can be a better post player than what Harrison should become in a season or two.
            Why do the things that we treasure most, slip away in time
            Till to the music we grow deaf, to God's beauty blind
            Why do the things that connect us slowly pull us apart?
            Till we fall away in our own darkness, a stranger to our own hearts
            And life itself, rushing over me
            Life itself, the wind in black elms,
            Life itself in your heart and in your eyes, I can't make it without you

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

              Originally posted by Jay@Section204
              If the decision became the first-rounder (Harrison) vs. Brezec, then I guess I can live with it.

              Had we not lost Byron Scott in an embarassing way, DW might've taken the risk of leaving Reggie unprotected. It's hard to blame him.

              I thought Brezec was better than Pollard, but I'm not sure Brezec can be a better post player than what Harrison should become in a season or two.


              I don't think there was a snowball's chance in Hell that DW would've left Reggie unprotected.

              -Bball
              Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

              ------

              "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

              -John Wooden

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                I believe that an earlier article by Peter may in the Boston Globe a few weeks back indicated that DW approached Charlotte about paying them off to not select Reggie if he were left unprotected. They declined.

                This is what happened, IMO:

                1) DW says: If Reggie is left unprotected, if we pay you (insert dollar amount), will you not take him?

                Charlotte answers: no guarantees

                2) DW says: If Brezac is left unprotected, if we pay you (insert dollar amount), will you not take him?

                Charlotte answers: no guarantees

                DW then decided that the potential fallout from losing Reggie would outweigh the damage from losing Primoz.

                I think that Reggie could have been left out there and no way would he have been picked, but I understand DW's reluctance to take that chance, even if it was a 1% chance.
                The poster "pacertom" since this forum began (and before!). I changed my name here to "Slick Pinkham" in honor of the imaginary player That Bobby "Slick" Leonard picked late in the 1971 ABA draft (true story!).

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                  It should be noted that, while Charlotte had little-to-no use for Reggie themselves, he would have been a valuable trade chip. For example, you can't tell me Isiah wouldn't have jumped at the chance to get him, if for no other reason than to thumb it to Bird. Contenders like SA, Miami, and even Detroit for that matter would all have been burning up the phone lines, as well.

                  I love Primoz, but we made the right decision. Now, if only we'd convinced Reggie to have an option this summer...
                  ---
                  Asked afterward if O'Neal's absence contributed to Charlotte's win, Knight bristled.

                  "What about Primoz? They didn't have Shaq, but we didn't have Primoz," he said.
                  Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                    I mean, if Reggie's contract is expired this summer, then we don't need a slot to protect him. We could just protect Brezeck and re-sign Reggie. I wander why Donnie did not do that.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                      Originally posted by pacertom
                      I think that Reggie could have been left out there and no way would he have been picked, but I understand DW's reluctance to take that chance, even if it was a 1% chance.
                      I so don't agree with that. If Reggie was available, he would have become the spokesman for the Charlotte Bobcats-the owner being owner of BET (Black Entertainment Television) and to get a future HOF'er to be on the first team for him would have been a no-brainer. Especially with his low value contract.

                      We should have Traded Primos for a future draft pick before the expansion draft-that was the only way we would have received anything for him.

                      One of the two was gone. Whomever was left unprotected. Period.







                      Two=the number 2
                      Too=means "also"
                      To=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (two, too) do not apply.

                      Their=shows ownership-'it is their house'
                      They're=they are
                      There=many definitions-also known as the one to use when the other 2 (their, they're) do not apply

                      Sorry but it bugs me when these are used incorrectly when I read posts on PacersDigest.com.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                        Originally posted by BigMac
                        Especially with his low value contract


                        Reggie makes more this year and next than Stephen Jackson does. I don't think Reggie as-is is worth 5.6mm this year, nor 6.25mm next year.

                        Or am I grossly misunderstanding your post?

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                          I feel like I am surrounded by golddiggers. If you were women you would marry an old rich man. Well some of you would. I am sure there are a few of you that arent too pretty on the eyes. Thus is life on the internet. Anyway, i digress.

                          Reggie is the heart and soul of this franchise. For the money he has generated for the franchise, for the memories he has given me, and for his hall of fame career there arent many peopl on htis team I wouldnt lose not to see him in another uniform.

                          I dont want to see him leave the Pacers on his own accord attempting to chase a championship and I dont want the Pacers losing him in a freakin expansion draft. Manyh of you fail to realize he was the spark to the fire for the last 15 years. He may be a pseudo-bench player but he deserves to retire a Pacer and he deserves to start. Until he proves he can't ball he deserves the SG spot for as long as he wants it.

                          Give up Reggie for Brezec? Not even if he averaged 20 - 10 the rest of his career. He was loyal to the Pacers and the Pacers should be loyal to him. The argument should be Brezec over Jones or Bender. Reggie isnt even a question.

                          You golddiggers kill me. I bet you were Bulls fans in the 90's and either Lakers/Celtics fans in the 80's. truly sad.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                            Give up Reggie for Brezec? Not even if he averaged 20 - 10 the rest of his career. He was loyal to the Pacers and the Pacers should be loyal to him. The argument should be Brezec over Jones or Bender. Reggie isnt even a question.

                            You golddiggers kill me. I bet you were Bulls fans in the 90's and either Lakers/Celtics fans in the 80's. truly sad.
                            You're kinda missing the point. The point is, Reggie was never in any danger of being picked. And if Donnie had handled the contract differently, the issue never would have had to come up.
                            This space for rent.

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Re: Inside info on why Reggie was protected but not Brezec

                              I think your missing the point. You dont expose the player who has kept you competitive for 15 years. Its that simple. If you cant grasp that then I feel sorry for you.

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 template Next
                              Working...
                              X