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

If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

    Originally posted by Unclebuck
    Maybe I'm taking your quote out of context, but it is not a fact that Ron ever said he wanted to retire. In fact we have articles, (Jay posted one yesterday) that does not mention retirement

    I don't believe for one minute that he said he wanted to retire. Take some time off, yes.
    "Retire" isn't the right word. But its awfully hard to not call him a "quitter", five games into a season with championship hopes ("One goal", remember).
    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


    • #77
      Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      I don't believe for one minute that he said he wanted to retire. Take some time off, yes.
      Originally posted by Unclebuck
      Yes Ron said he wanted to retire. I don't doubt that. But he obviously didn't retire. And if he really wanted to retire, suspending him would have pushed him into retirement even faster. So obviously Ron decided not to retire
      I'm so confused.....
      PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

        Originally posted by Unclebuck
        Maybe I'm taking your quote out of context, but it is not a fact that Ron ever said he wanted to retire. In fact we have articles, (Jay posted one yesterday) that does not mention retirement

        I don't believe for one minute that he said he wanted to retire. Take some time off, yes.

        An Article I read said that Ron wanted to retire.

        That's what I'm basing my statement off of.

        Here is the link. The article is dated November 12, 2004.

        http://www.slamonline.com/links/11082004/

        Here is what I'm referring to

        Also, since we talked about Ron Artest yesterday, some information surfaced last night that finally shed some light on what's going on. First, the info. We'll discuss the source -- an actual NBA Insider -- in a moment...
        Multiple sources have told me that at the beginning of this week Ron Artest went to Rick Carlisle and said that he wanted to retire. He said he did not feel like he wanted to play basketball anymore. He said he was just worn out, I guess from promoting his CD...That was the genesis of this benching. I spoke with Rick Carlisle in the last half-hour and he said Ron Artest is with the team and that he will play tomorrow night. I was also told by a source that Ron Artest and Jermaine O'Neal may have had a physical confrontation. Rick Carlisle specifically denied that that happened, but I was told that by a pretty good source. I can tell you this, regardless of whether that happened Jermaine O'Neal and Ron Artest have been at loggerheads for the last year or so. I can tell you that Jermaine O'Neal is just about done with Ron Artest...It's a question of whether or not he can trust Ron Artest and he does not feel that he can. I asked Rick Carlisle about a half-hour ago whether he could trust Ron Artest and he said 'I don't know, trust is something you earn'."
        That's what David Aldridge reported last night. I loved it because for the last 36 hours, everyone on ESPN had come up with all kinds of stories and stuff and talk and flash, but no one had reported what actually happened. Until the guy that ESPN got rid of told the story.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

          Originally posted by MagicRat
          I'm so confused.....

          **** MR just leave us alone. I had a fun argument going. Now I'm exposed.


          Well, maybe he did say he wanted to retire, or maybe he didn't. It is not a fact though, we have conflicting stories. I am barely holding on here, someone throw me a rope

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

            Originally posted by Unclebuck
            **** MR just leave us alone. I had a fun argument going. Now I'm exposed.



            I haven't read all of these Artest threads, so I don't know which article Jay posted, but the GQ article did specifically mention retirement.....................

            ***************************
            He carefully places what's left of his ice cream cake back in the freezer—which Lou has somehow fixed. Then he sits back on the stool and says there's one thing he should have made clear. "When they said I wanted to retire to do a rap album? That's not true." He is referring to the comment he made at the beginning of this season that infuriated the sports world. How dare Ron Artest, making $6 million a year to play a game, want to take time off to cut a frickin' rap album?

            So what part wasn't true?

            "Honestly? At that time, I wanted to get out. At the time. There was a lot of stress."

            He explains how his grandmother had just died, and when he saw all his family at the funeral he started to wonder what was important to him. Things hit home. "It was pretty bad. So I just—I was really ready to move out of this whole lifestyle, just go home and maybe get a little apartment and just have a different lifestyle." He thought maybe he could get a real job. That's why, he says, he applied for that job at Circuit City.

            When Ron Artest filled out a Circuit City job application—after signing a $3 million contract with the Chicago Bulls—the sportswriters howled, of course. How weird is this guy?

            "I just wanted, you know, to work. I tell my wife, I wanna get a job," he says. A real job. "When I first got in the NBA, I was a little overwhelmed and stuff." He just wanted, you know, a normal life. He explains how he was hanging out at the Chicago Circuit City every day anyway, "and the boss liked me. So I said, you know, Why not work there? I had lots of free time. It would have been fun. Plus, I would have got, you know, like 15 percent off, or something."

            So he applied for a minimum-wage job, listing as his current employer "the Chicago Bulls." And then it got out in the press, and that was that. "That was bad."

            What was bad?

            "I couldn't take the job."

            His kids rush into the kitchen. They want to watch Shark Tale again. Ron tells them it is past their bedtime, and he'll be right up to tuck them in.

            When he's alone again, I ask him if he still wants out.

            "Oh, no," he says. "My goodness. That was a tough time, but I have some good family support, and they helped me get through it. Which was definitely needed at the time." He says he intends to play in the NBA for at least twenty seasons. He wants to win a championship, at least one. There is nothing he loves more than basketball.

            And that retirement thing?

            He's over that...........

            **************

            Sorry. Back to glorified lurker mode...........
            PSN: MRat731 XBL: MRat0731

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

              Originally posted by Unclebuck
              Jax is an upgrade over Reggie. Tinsley if healthy is better than two years ago,. Fred Jones is better than two years ago. Jax can defend Rip better than the players we had in 2004.

              Our toughness and experience is better than 2004. Haven't I already posted this.
              Don't forget James Jones.
              "If you ever crawl inside an old hollow log and go to sleep, and while you're in there some guys come and seal up both ends and then put it on a truck and take it to another city, boy, I don't know what to tell you." - Jack Handy

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                Originally posted by Unclebuck
                For those who just want to cut our losses and get something for him. Give me some names. How does Bonzi sound. Ron's trade value is low. If Ron is traded, I'll recover, but I'll be an *** as Ron cleans up his act and helps whatever team he goes to all the while the player we got is maybe the 6th best player on the team.
                Before I answer this, I want to clarify something. I've made my feelings about Ron (as a player) pretty well known, but I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt going into this season. I started having my doubts around the time he had his thumb surgery, but still maintained some hope that all the behind-the-scenes grumblings I was hearing were incidental in the bigger scheme of things. Even the ECFs didn't completely drag me down even though I knew he was being shopped last summer largely because of what was perceived to be an inability to handle the pressure of a deep playoff run. Watching the first 7 games of this past season was incredibly uplifting and when we shredded the defending champs on their own court, I was ecstatic.

                That all evaporated when Ron charged into the stands.

                Now, I sat there and watched the replays and wanted to find some modicum of comfort in what the commentators were saying that night by placing the blame largely on the fans. I really wanted to believe that...but it didn't sit right with me. Deep down I knew that our season had been destroyed and that the franchise's reputation had been sullied, and at the center of all that was none other than who else. And please pay particular attention to those last two words—Who else. Because that is where my chagrin lies.

                That said, who would I like to see us get for Ron? Well, there have been times this past season where I've thought we should just cut him and move on. And that feeling hasn't completely gone away. And then there's a part of me that wants to keep him and see how this core group of players does, although the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" rings loudly in my ears. I also can't overlook his meltdown in the ECFs and how that impacted his value. So if there was a realistic chance of getting any one of these guys, I'd probably do it: Odom, Iguodala, Marion, Pierce, Johnson or Dunleavy.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                  Originally posted by Harmonica
                  So if there was a realistic chance of getting any one of these guys, I'd probably do it: Odom, Iguodala, Marion, Pierce, Johnson or Dunleavy.

                  OK, that is fair enough, the next question is would any of those teams do that trade.

                  Lakers won't. Phil is said to be a huge fan of Odom.

                  Suns will not. They aren't going to take a chance on a 62 win team. Plus Ron does not fit that team at all.

                  Wow you would really take Dunleavy. holy cow there goes our defense. Not even sure the Warriors would do that, but maybe

                  That leaves us with the Sixers and Celts. Word I the Celts are looking to trade Pierce so maybe they might

                  Sixers, I think are really high on Ig, maybe DD can chime in here, but not ue they would make the trade either.

                  So do you want Pierce

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                    Originally posted by Unclebuck
                    So do you want Pierce?
                    Hell yes.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                      Originally posted by Unclebuck
                      Wow you would really take Dunleavy. Holy cow there goes our defense. Not even sure the Warriors would do that, but maybe.
                      I think his defense would improve here. I think most players' defense would.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                        Originally posted by Harmonica
                        Before I answer this, I want to clarify something. I've made my feelings about Ron (as a player) pretty well known, but I was willing to give him the benefit of doubt going into this season. I started having my doubts around the time he had his thumb surgery, but still maintained some hope that all the behind-the-scenes grumblings I was hearing were incidental in the bigger scheme of things. Even the ECFs didn't completely drag me down even though I knew he was being shopped last summer largely because of his behavior in that series (both on and off the court). Watching the first 7 games of this past season was incredibly uplifting and when we shredded the defending champs on their own court, I was ecstatic.

                        That all evaporated when Ron charged into the stands.

                        Now, I sat there and watched the replays and wanted to find some modicum of comfort in what the commentators were saying that night by placing the blame largely on the fans. I really wanted to believe that...but it didn't sit right with me. Deep down I knew that our season had been destroyed and that the franchise's reputation had been sullied, and at the center of all that was none other than who else. And please pay particular attention to those last two words—Who else. Because that is where my chagrin lies.

                        That said, who would I like to see us get for Ron? Well, there have been times this past season where I've thought we should just cut him and move on. And that feeling hasn't completely gone away. And then there's a part of me that wants to keep him and see how this core group of players does, although the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" rings loudly in my ears. I also can't overlook his meltdown in the ECFs and how that impacted his value. So if there was a realistic chance of getting any one of these guys, I'd probably do it: Odom, Iguodala, Marion, Pierce, Johnson or Dunleavy.

                        VERY good discription of my emotions....WHO ELSE.

                        I've always said I like Ron, I used to be one of his loudest supporters, but there comes a time, and mine was last year....enhanced by the "retirement" and confirmed by the follow-up.....but Dunleavy????
                        Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                          Originally posted by indygeezer
                          VERY good discription of my emotions....WHO ELSE.

                          I've always said I like Ron, I used to be one of his loudest supporters, but there comes a time, and mine was last year....enhanced by the "retirement" and confirmed by the follow-up.....but Dunleavy????
                          Am I placing too much value on Ron?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                            Originally posted by PacerFanAdam
                            I'm a PACERS fan, and the Pacers franchise is more important to me than any single player. Ron Artest, IMO, has wrecked the franchise's image over the past couple of years.


                            The Pacers have 4 WORTHLESS Central Division Championships and 1 Eastern Conference Championship. You have to win a championship to be an elite franchise. You earn admiration amongst other franchises for winning a ring.
                            So what part do we as fans want? Is it more important to have a wonderful image or to win a championship since anything less is worthless?

                            Not trying to be a smart @ss here but I will say this once again. I use to worry about the Ps image as well. It was a good excuse to make me feel better about the franchise when they were winning only 20 games a year. We're not very good, but dammit our guys are classy and well liked. It took a Blazer to open my eyes. Wish I could find the exact quote but it was basically "the Pacers are really nice and classy guys, too bad they play like a CBA team". He was talking about Clark Kellogg, Herb Williams, to give you an idea when this took place. As a fan I hated to hear the truth and to me that really stung.

                            Until Chuck Person with a chip on his shoulder and Jack Ramsey with his arrogance as a coach arrive did we finally see some wins.

                            When it comes to professional sports I don't concern myself with their image. That's something to worry about in real life.
                            You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                              LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mike Dunleavy for Ron Artest. I know you hate Ron Artest but COME ON, Mike Dunleavy. I would much rather have the guy backing up Dunleavy, Mickel Pietrus. The guy is going to be a star. Dunleavy wont be nothing but a role player.

                              Mike Dunleavy for Ron Artest BABY, The move to make the Pacers a better team.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: If Ron were inevitably going to be traded...

                                Originally posted by Jermaniac
                                LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Mike Dunleavy for Ron Artest. I know you hate Ron Artest but COME ON, Mike Dunleavy. I would much rather have the guy backing up Dunleavy, Mickel Pietrus. The guy is going to be a star. Dunleavy wont be nothing but a role player.

                                Mike Dunleavy for Ron Artest BABY, The move to make the Pacers a better team.
                                I don't hate Ron. That's a shortcut to thinking.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X