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

Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

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

  • Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...612110395/1088

    CHICAGO -- Stephen Jackson accepts the one-game suspension the Indiana Pacers imposed on him Sunday.


    That doesn't mean he agrees with it.
    Jackson was suspended by the franchise for tonight's game against the Chicago Bulls at the United Center over his bench confrontation with coach Rick Carlisle in the second period of Saturday's loss at Cleveland.
    Carlisle sent Jackson to the locker room after Jackson objected to being benched late in the first half, by which time the Pacers were trailing by 24 points.
    He remained in the locker room for the second half as the Pacers suffered their worst defeat of the season, 107-75.
    Sunday, while the team took a day off in Chicago, Jackson explained his side of the story.
    "I'm going to take it, because anything that happens to me I stand up and take it," he said. "If I'm wrong for anything, I'm wrong for challenging (Carlisle's) authority to take me out. Rick and (CEO Donnie Walsh) have always supported me 100 percent and I have great respect for them, but at the same time I don't think I should be the target when the team is playing bad."
    Carlisle indicated following Saturday's game that Jackson would play tonight. Sunday, however, in what Carlisle termed a franchise decision, a one-game suspension was levied.
    Carlisle and Walsh declined further comment.
    Jackson had re-entered Saturday's game with 6:04 remaining in the second quarter, but LeBron James proceeded to scored nine of Cleveland's next 11 points, seven of them against Jackson.
    Jackson, who was pulled with 2:46 left, said he did not raise his voice to Carlisle as he walked off the court, but asked why he was being taken out. He said Carlisle told him he wanted to make a substitution, at which point Jackson muttered something under his breath that might have been overheard. Carlisle then stood and told him to go to the locker room.
    Carlisle did not elaborate on the exchange, other than to say he considered Jackson's comments to be "inappropriate and detrimental."
    Jackson came under fire last season for complaining excessively over officials' calls and when removed from games. He had vowed in the preseason to be less emotional, while Carlisle indicated he would be stricter.
    Jackson's reputation took another hit during the first week of training camp when he fired shots into the air during an incident in a strip club parking lot in Indianapolis.
    He faces a court appearance in Michigan on Jan. 26 to determine if his actions violated the conditions of his probation related to his involvement in the brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills two years ago during the Pacers' game at Detroit.
    "I don't want people to lump this with other things that have happened," Jackson said. "I think this has been blown out of proportion."
    Jackson said he gets upset over being removed because he doesn't get tired and believes he can help the team win.
    "Inside I feel everybody should get mad about losing," he said. "We make too much money not to go out and play hard and not care about wins and losses. The fans don't pay to see us come to lose.
    "Sometimes my emotions flare in a game, but how can you play in a big-time game like this without emotion? I just want to win."
    O'Neal's doubtful

    Jermaine O'Neal had said he would play tonight, but the Pacers are doubtful.
    O'Neal strained his left hamstring at Seattle on Dec. 1, and aggravated it in last week's game against Orlando. He has missed the previous two games.
    "He wants to play and he feels like he could go, but we need to make sure we assess the risk factors before we send him out there," Carlisle said.
    Carlisle added the MRI of O'Neal's injury shows a problem area

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

    I've highlighted the above because that is down right hilarious.

    I can close my eyes & envision it now.

    Jackson: Sir, I am sorry to question you on this but was I taken out of the game because of poor play? I only want to know so that I can go over here & examine my actions to see where I may improve.

    Carlisle: Oh heavens no, I only wished to make a substituion so that you could regather yourself for longer term durability.

    Jackson: Thank you sir for the respite I will redouble my efforts & will return all the more refreshed & ready to help the team.

    As he moves away to sit on the bench he hits his knee on a chair

    Jackson: Gosh darn (muttered under his breath)


    Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

  • #2
    Indy Star: Pacers Bench Jackson for Tonight's Game

    http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dl...612110395/1088

    Pacers bench Jackson for tonight's game
    guard disagrees with suspension imposed in the wake of exchange with coach in cleveland



    By Mark Montieth
    mark.montieth@indystar.com

    CHICAGO -- Stephen Jackson accepts the one-game suspension the Indiana Pacers imposed on him Sunday.

    That doesn't mean he agrees with it.
    Jackson was suspended by the franchise for tonight's game against the Chicago Bulls at the United Center over his bench confrontation with coach Rick Carlisle in the second period of Saturday's loss at Cleveland.
    Carlisle sent Jackson to the locker room after Jackson objected to being benched late in the first half, by which time the Pacers were trailing by 24 points.
    He remained in the locker room for the second half as the Pacers suffered their worst defeat of the season, 107-75.
    Sunday, while the team took a day off in Chicago, Jackson explained his side of the story.
    "I'm going to take it, because anything that happens to me I stand up and take it," he said. "If I'm wrong for anything, I'm wrong for challenging (Carlisle's) authority to take me out. Rick and (CEO Donnie Walsh) have always supported me 100 percent and I have great respect for them, but at the same time I don't think I should be the target when the team is playing bad."
    Carlisle indicated following Saturday's game that Jackson would play tonight. Sunday, however, in what Carlisle termed a franchise decision, a one-game suspension was levied.
    Carlisle and Walsh declined further comment.
    Jackson had re-entered Saturday's game with 6:04 remaining in the second quarter, but LeBron James proceeded to scored nine of Cleveland's next 11 points, seven of them against Jackson.
    Jackson, who was pulled with 2:46 left, said he did not raise his voice to Carlisle as he walked off the court, but asked why he was being taken out. He said Carlisle told him he wanted to make a substitution, at which point Jackson muttered something under his breath that might have been overheard. Carlisle then stood and told him to go to the locker room.
    Carlisle did not elaborate on the exchange, other than to say he considered Jackson's comments to be "inappropriate and detrimental."
    Jackson came under fire last season for complaining excessively over officials' calls and when removed from games. He had vowed in the preseason to be less emotional, while Carlisle indicated he would be stricter.
    Jackson's reputation took another hit during the first week of training camp when he fired shots into the air during an incident in a strip club parking lot in Indianapolis.
    He faces a court appearance in Michigan on Jan. 26 to determine if his actions violated the conditions of his probation related to his involvement in the brawl at the Palace of Auburn Hills two years ago during the Pacers' game at Detroit.
    "I don't want people to lump this with other things that have happened," Jackson said. "I think this has been blown out of proportion."
    Jackson said he gets upset over being removed because he doesn't get tired and believes he can help the team win.
    "Inside I feel everybody should get mad about losing," he said. "We make too much money not to go out and play hard and not care about wins and losses. The fans don't pay to see us come to lose.
    "Sometimes my emotions flare in a game, but how can you play in a big-time game like this without emotion? I just want to win."

    O'Neal's doubtful

    Jermaine O'Neal had said he would play tonight, but the Pacers are doubtful.
    O'Neal strained his left hamstring at Seattle on Dec. 1, and aggravated it in last week's game against Orlando. He has missed the previous two games.
    "He wants to play and he feels like he could go, but we need to make sure we assess the risk factors before we send him out there," Carlisle said.
    Carlisle added the MRI of O'Neal's injury shows a problem area.
    New Zealand's Number 1 Pacer Fan!! Visited Conseco Fieldhouse Feb 10 2006

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

      Good times. We really need to get Jackson off this team, even if we have to pay another team to take him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

        Originally posted by Eindar View Post
        Good times. We really need to get Jackson off this team, even if we have to pay another team to take him.
        if you got Peja for Artest, imagine who you could get for Jackson...

        sorry..

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

          I'd take an expiring contract for him, definitely. Better players can be had for the MLE every year.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

            Let me say a couple of things, I have no problem with the 1 game suspension, and Jackson should not get upset when he's taken out of the game, and I've wanted Jackson traded for a year now, I was one of the first ones who wanted him traded.

            OK - having said all that, I don't know how anyone can disagree with this part of the article.

            Jackson said he gets upset over being removed because he doesn't get tired and believes he can help the team win.
            "Inside I feel everybody should get mad about losing," he said. "We make too much money not to go out and play hard and not care about wins and losses. The fans don't pay to see us come to lose".



            I believe Jackson cares about winning as much as any player on the team, I believe Jax plays hurt more than any player on the team, I believe Jackson is maybe the most competitive player on the Pacers.

            Jackson makes some very good points, maybe every player isn't getting mad about the losing

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

              Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
              Let me say a couple of things, I have no problem with the 1 game suspension, and Jackson should not get upset when he's taken out of the game, and I've wanted Jackson traded for a year now, I was one of the first ones who wanted him traded.

              OK - having said all that, I don't know how anyone can disagree with this part of the article.

              Jackson said he gets upset over being removed because he doesn't get tired and believes he can help the team win.
              "Inside I feel everybody should get mad about losing," he said. "We make too much money not to go out and play hard and not care about wins and losses. The fans don't pay to see us come to lose".



              I believe Jackson cares about winning as much as any player on the team, I believe Jax plays hurt more than any player on the team, I believe Jackson is maybe the most competitive player on the Pacers.

              Jackson makes some very good points, maybe every player isn't getting mad about the losing
              The part that I think Carlisle considers detrimental, however, is when Jack gets too mad at losing. MJ was the most competitive player of all time. He was probably mad at losing too but after a loss he would never flip out; he'd mentally stay in the game and then prepare mentally for the next time he'd play. Jack sometimes forgets everything in the heat of the moment. He's gotten better at it and will only improve with this attitude. I'm sure Carlisle is only doing this for his own good.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                "Inside I feel everybody should get mad about losing," he said. "We make too much money not to go out and play hard and not care about wins and losses. The fans don't pay to see us come to lose.
                "Sometimes my emotions flare in a game, but how can you play in a big-time game like this without emotion? I just want to win."
                So, then, is he saying he's the only person on this team that wants to win? Because he seems to be the only one who lets his emotions get out of control.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                  Originally posted by rexnom View Post
                  The part that I think Carlisle considers detrimental, however, is when Jack gets too mad at losing. MJ was the most competitive player of all time. He was probably mad at losing too but after a loss he would never flip out; he'd mentally stay in the game and then prepare mentally for the next time he'd play. Jack sometimes forgets everything in the heat of the moment. He's gotten better at it and will only improve with this attitude. I'm sure Carlisle is only doing this for his own good.
                  That's how I view it as well. I don't think Buck was saying different, just saying that there are different kinds of wrong. Wrong in the sense of "I don't want to come out, I can help" even if it's not true at the moment is better that "what do I care, I get paid no matter what".

                  I realize that every player wants to play and they don't all throw fits. That's why I agree with Rick. I'm just saying that Jackson isn't pulling an AI or Baron Davis "I don't want to be here" effort. To me that would be a lot worse.

                  Better this than to hear Ron Artest admit that he didn't give his full effort with the Pacers sometimes because he wasn't be paid a fair amount.



                  Anyway, this suggests to me that Bird decided that Rick was still being too soft on Jack and wanted to make a stronger point about the situation. Hopefully Jack is listening to the message about how he deals with frustration.

                  Seriously, is there anyone in Indianapolis more on Jackson's side than Rick? That's the one guy I would be supporting at all costs if I were Jack. Of course I'd say the same was true of Ron and that didn't stop him from putting the knife in his back (and into Bird, DW and the Simons, his other biggest supporters). Some people just don't know what's good for them.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                    im loving this
                    If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
                    [/center]
                    @thatguyjoe84

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                      I hate this.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                        Originally posted by Shade View Post
                        So, then, is he saying he's the only person on this team that wants to win? Because he seems to be the only one who lets his emotions get out of control.
                        No, I don't think that is what he's saying (at least not in the Jax quote that I highlighted). He sees his teammates in the locker room, on the bus at practice at shoot arounds - so think he knows who really cares about winning and who cares more about the paycheck and fame.

                        I happen to think Jax is one of the most competeitve guys on the team

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                          I'm sorry but I am 100% behind this decision in fact if Jack ever wears a Pacer jersey again it will be too soon and you all know I supported him through Club Rio vehemently, but enough is enough. Ship him out there for whatever the best offer is. There has to be one team that will take him.


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                            Originally posted by indy0731 View Post
                            I'm sorry but I am 100% behind this decision in fact if Jack ever wears a Pacer jersey again it will be too soon and you all know I supported him through Club Rio vehemently, but enough is enough. Ship him out there for whatever the best offer is. There has to be one team that will take him.

                            I'm with you - I basically have always thought he's a nice piece as a 3rd or 4th option, and that he was unfairly hated by the fans. But this is it - we can't have any drama on the team. Frankly, the Pacers should just de-activate him, the way the bulls did Tim Thomas last year.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Jackson suspended by team for game vs. the Bulls

                              I agree. There has to be a breaking point, and might as well let this be it before he does further damage to the team's image.

                              Note to Jack: fans don't pay money to see you brick threes and disrespect your coach, either.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X