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

Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

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

  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

    Originally posted by Anthem View Post
    Makes sense to me as well. It's a decent bit of value for JO.

    I'm not sure I like our roster afterwards, though. Our frontcourt would be somewhat iffy (I'm not a big believer in Ike). Plus we'd have a lot of pretty bad contracts, meaning it would be kind of hard to dig our way out.

    Foster - Harrison
    Murphy - Ike - Baston
    Granger - Shawne - Dunleavy
    Wally - Greene - Quis
    West - McLeod - Greene

    And we'd have the #5.

    I'm not sure it's a step up, but it's interesting.
    well i don't think its necessarily a step back, which is important for TPTB obviously. i see this deal as about the same as the laker deals...

    odom = wally ... same length of contract about the same value, wally shoots 3s and lamar is a playmaker
    bynum + 19 = west + green + 5 ... we get two prospects in our hurting backcourt instead of one for our not all that impressive frontcourt.
    ratliff = mckie ... ratliff is bigger but mckie will be paid for by the lakers

    what we decide is just to fix our backcourt instead of the frontcourt.

    Originally posted by CableKC View Post
    I can only imagine what type of lineup we would have. We would have an endless rotation of SG/SF. Hmm...small ball for the next 2 season....sounds like fun.
    obviously wally isn't ideal, but just like odom, his exp. will be valuable to us to either give us cap room when ike, danny and green are up to for being re-signed or we trade his exp for something else.

    if we get bynum our backcourt is going to be hurting. if we get green and west our front court is going to be lacking. pick your poison. either way we get $$$ room and players that could help and/or hopefully develop into better players. this way we actually get people who can shoot too.
    This is the darkest timeline.

    Comment


    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

      Originally posted by BlueNGold View Post
      I like that deal for several reasons. We immediately have a fresh look at PG. West is very young and very solid. We get young talent with the #5 pick and Green. We get an excellent shooter with Wally. There are major financial incentives as well. We get cap relief with Ratliff. Wally also comes off the books just in time to re-sign Granger and Ike. That is HUGE cap relief. We might even get lucky and see Horford drop to #5.
      Maybe we could make a push for West, #5, and Jefferson for JO Tinsley and/maybe???. I'd rather have this then the lakers deal personally. We'd get a good young center, the #5 and a good solid young pg we'd be set for a while. Boston would have to listen, they are so itching to win now and get a new star, they would have to at least consider it.

      Comment


      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

        Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
        if we get bynum our backcourt is going to be hurting. if we get green and west our front court is going to be lacking. pick your poison. either way we get $$$ room and players that could help and/or hopefully develop into better players. this way we actually get people who can shoot too.
        I actually like my last deal ok... it's not a wonder cure, but it has some really nice points to it. We'd have a ton of financial flexibility, we'd have really interesting young players at 4 (Ike), 3 (Danny and Shawne), 2 (Gerald Green), and 1 (Delonte West). We'd have a #5 pick, to do with as we pleased. We'd also still have a mess with way too many small forwards and no adequate center, but we're there anyway.

        Like I said, it's interesting.
        This space for rent.

        Comment


        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

          Originally posted by BoomBaby31 View Post
          Maybe we could make a push for West, #5, and Jefferson for JO Tinsley and/maybe???. I'd rather have this then the lakers deal personally. We'd get a good young center, the #5 and a good solid young pg we'd be set for a while. Boston would have to listen, they are so itching to win now and get a new star, they would have to at least consider it.
          They're not dealing Jefferson.
          This space for rent.

          Comment


          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

            Originally posted by Jay View Post
            UncleBuck has lost him mind.

            Show me once when KG has defended somebody in the paint. He's a fine perimeter defender, but he's got nothing on JO in terms of owning the paint, protecting the rim, etc.
            Apart from the "lost his mind" part I mildly agree. I think more of KG in the paint than that, but IMO the difference between JO and KG is purely on the offensive end. KG is a better shooter and has stronger handles, by a pretty fair margin. At the other end I'll take my chances with JO just as quickly as with KG.

            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
            That is why I love Donnie Walsh
            I agree 100%. What's there to say, your biz is your biz. Chumps play in the press IMO, that's agent kind of crap there.
            Last edited by Naptown_Seth; 06-25-2007, 10:45 PM.

            Comment


            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              If we're doing a deal with Boston, and we're getting back Wally/Ratliff/Greene/West/#5, then we'd actually be ok to include Murphy instead of Tinsley. Which I'd be fine with. Or we could include both, and they throw in Scalabrine and the #32.

              Our contract situation would be a TON better, and we wouldn't be much worse as a team.
              Originally posted by Anthem View Post
              I actually like my last deal ok... it's not a wonder cure, but it has some really nice points to it. We'd have a ton of financial flexibility, we'd have really interesting young players at 4 (Ike), 3 (Danny and Shawne), 2 (Gerald Green), and 1 (Delonte West). We'd have a #5 pick, to do with as we pleased. We'd also still have a mess with way too many small forwards and no adequate center, but we're there anyway.

              Like I said, it's interesting.
              tinsley they have an interest in because a veteran PG would be more valuable than murphy when they'd already have jefferson, o'neal and perkins as their bigs and gomes and powe developing in the 4 slot. murphy won't interest them. sure i'd like to include murphy but it wouldn't interest them.
              This is the darkest timeline.

              Comment


              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                tinsley they have an interest in because a veteran PG would be more valuable than murphy when they'd already have jefferson, o'neal and perkins as their bigs and gomes and powe developing in the 4 slot. murphy won't interest them. sure i'd like to include murphy but it wouldn't interest them.
                I hear you. But the JO/Tins trade isn't enough of a "win" to get me really interested. It gives the team a new look, which is nice. But it's not really a better team, and we wouldn't have much left in the way of tradable assets.

                EDIT: I'm telling you, if we don't get rid of Murphy this summer then he's ours for the duration. Austin Croshere part two.
                Last edited by Anthem; 06-25-2007, 11:02 PM.
                This space for rent.

                Comment


                • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                  Originally posted by Naptown_Seth View Post

                  Detlef called, he's revoked your Pacers fan license.
                  So I'm big, big liar and have a giant man-crush on Andrew Bynum.

                  Ron/Brad was clearly better too. We can debate Jalen, Mark, JO, and maybe even Mully too if you wanna call me out completely. Jeez, some people and their "facts" just can't help but throwing around actual historic "information." This is the Internet, buddy, get with the program.
                  Last edited by JayRedd; 06-25-2007, 11:23 PM.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                    Originally posted by avoidingtheclowns View Post
                    odom = wally ... same length of contract about the same value, wally shoots 3s and lamar is a playmaker
                    I kind of lost concentration after seeing this.
                    "It's just unfortunate that we've been penalized so much this year and nothing has happened to the Pistons, the Palace or the city of Detroit," he said. "It's almost like it's always our fault. The league knows it. They should be ashamed of themselves to let the security be as lax as it is around here."

                    ----------------- Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                      Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
                      I kind of lost concentration after seeing this.
                      i meant in terms of what they each would provide the pacers... cap room but an offensive ability beyond kwame or theo. i didn't mean they literally were the same - just in what they provide the pacers.
                      This is the darkest timeline.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                        Originally posted by Cactus Jax View Post
                        I kind of lost concentration after seeing this.
                        Obviously Odom's the better player and the more valuable one if we're moving him after acquiring him. But neither is going to win us a championship... they're just biding their time until their contracts expire. And they have identical contracts.
                        This space for rent.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                          Originally posted by Kegboy View Post
                          Chicago?
                          That's not funny.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                            Anyone listening to Fox Sports Radio? George Sodano says Indy gets the most complete value if they get Odom and Bynum in the 4 team trade.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                              I don't get it that if Minny wants young players and expirings they don't take on the best expiring player they can get in JO, who can opt out next year (which if he is traded to Minny will probably do to join Isiah in NY).

                              That way Minny can still bolster up a pretty decent lineup without some dead weight like Ratliff.
                              Maceo Baston's #1 fan on Pacers Digest!

                              Comment


                              • Re: Lakers/Minnesota/Pacers/possible 4th team in talks

                                A resoution soon???

                                http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-...ck=7&cset=true

                                Lakers in trade talks to get Garnett
                                They continue talks with Minnesota over a deal that could include Odom and Bynum. A four-team trade is dismissed by Boston.
                                By Mike Bresnahan and Mark Heisler, Times Staff Writers
                                June 26, 2007


                                Trade talks continued Monday between the Minnesota Timberwolves and the Lakers after a four-team proposal that would have sent All-Star forward Kevin Garnett to the Lakers collapsed.

                                Minnesota owner Glen Taylor was expected to be in the Timberwolves' offices this morning before departing for a honeymoon in China. His appearance at team headquarters suggested a quick resolution on the Lakers' proposal, which includes forward Lamar Odom and center Andrew Bynum.

                                However, sources said that Kevin McHale, the Timberwolves' vice president of basketball operations, wasn't keen on the Lakers' offer.
                                Another topsy-turvy day — a phrase used often to describe daily happenings during the Lakers' off-season — began Monday with prospects of a four-team trade and ended with the Lakers and Timberwolves still having the same rosters.

                                Taylor and Lakers owner Jerry Buss began the groundwork for trade talks with a 20-minute chat on Friday. That conversation expanded Monday into discussions about a deal involving the Lakers, Minnesota, Indiana and Boston, in which the Lakers would have received Garnett. However, the deal broke down, reportedly because the Celtics didn't like what they would have gotten, ending the four-way negotiations.

                                The Lakers are now back to direct talks with the Timberwolves. Although the 19-year-old Bynum would satisfy one need, the fact that the Lakers have the 19th pick in Thursday's draft isn't high enough for the Timberwolves' tastes.

                                In another scenario, the Lakers could include center Kwame Brown in the deal and also acquire Troy Hudson or Marko Jaric to address a need for a ballhandling guard while lifting an unfavorable contract off the Timberwolves' books.

                                Lakers officials declined to comment Monday.

                                Acquiring Garnett could address the concerns of Kobe Bryant, who demanded to be traded four weeks ago.

                                Bryant met with Lakers General Manager Mitch Kupchak for about an hour on Friday, a day after Garnett rejected a trade that would have sent him to Boston.

                                Bryant did not step down from his desire to be traded at that meeting, although Kupchak, Buss and Lakers Coach Phil Jackson met later that day to discuss options based on the assumption they would still have Bryant, The Times has learned.

                                Garnett, 31, has never formally asked for a trade while signaling his distress in recent years as the Timberwolves fell from top-notch status. The No. 1-seeded team in the Western Conference in 2004, they lost to the Lakers in the conference finals and haven't made the playoffs since then.

                                The Timberwolves finished 33-49 in 2005-06 and 32-50 last season, tied for 12th in the West with Portland.

                                Garnett can opt out of his contract after next season. He wants an extension, which Buss reportedly told Taylor he was willing to offer. Garnett is due to earn $22 million next season and $23 million in 2008-09, the last year of his contract.

                                Garnett, a 10-time All-Star and the 2004 league most valuable player, averaged 22.4 points, 12.8 rebounds, 4.1 assists and 1.7 blocked shots last season while showing few signs of slowing down, other than spending the last five games of the season in Los Angeles — he has a home in Malibu — to rest a sore right quadriceps.

                                Bynum, 19, started his second NBA season with a flurry, including a memorable game against Minnesota in which he had 20 points, 14 rebounds and three blocked shots last November.

                                But Bynum struggled during the second half of the season and finished with averages of 7.8 points and 5.9 rebounds a game. The Lakers have been criticized by Bryant for not trading Bynum at the February trade deadline in order to get Jason Kidd from New Jersey.

                                Odom, 27, was acquired three years ago as part of the trade that sent Shaquille O'Neal to Miami.

                                He averaged 15.9 points, 9.8 rebounds and 4.8 assists last season and sat out 26 games because of knee and shoulder injuries. He had a torn labrum in his left shoulder repaired last month and is expected to return in time for training camp in October.

                                Hudson, 31, has three years and $18.9 million left on his contract. He averaged 5.9 points and 2.1 assists in 34 games in an injury-marred season. He recently requested a trade.

                                Jaric, 28, has four years and $27.4 million left on his contract. The former Clippers guard averaged 5.3 points and 2.1 assists in 70 games last season.

                                He has been a disappointment since signing a six-year contract as a free agent two years ago, although his 6-foot-7 body would be a plus for Jackson, who favors taller guards in the triangle offense. Hudson is listed at 6 feet 1 and is more of a push-the-pace type.


                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                mike.bresnahan@latimes.com

                                ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                                In a prolly totally unrelated note...I heard on Sports radio last evening (950 or 1260????) that Bird was scheduled to meet with the press today. Not a big deal just a routine pre-draft meeting.
                                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X