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

Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

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

  • Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

    I realize many will hate the very premise of the question and that it is difficult to talk about because we don't know the details. However, I think it has to be considered. Maybe babysitting is part of Larry and Donnie's job.

    If the player is capable of putting us in the elite teams of the league shouldn't Management just deal with Ron? It doesn't sound like Ron's issues are with his teammates. I don't see anyone calling him a cancer or questioning his work ethic. It just sounds like he is high maintance. Maybe answer isn't trading Ron but our GM's swallowing thier pride and putting up with his ****.

    Rodman won how many rings? Do you think Philly regrets not trading AI? Would Detriot have won this year without Sheed? Maybe this is another part of the GM's job in today's NBA.
    "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

    "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

  • #2
    Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

    Originally posted by Arcadian
    I realize many will hate the very premise of the question and that it is difficult to talk about because we don't know the details. However, I think it has to be considered. Maybe babysitting is part of Larry and Donnie's job.

    If the player is capable of putting us in the elite teams of the league shouldn't Management just deal with Ron? It doesn't sound like Ron's issues are with his teammates. I don't see anyone calling him a cancer or questioning his work ethic. It just sounds like he is high maintance. Maybe answer isn't trading Ron but our GM's swallowing thier pride and putting up with his ****.

    Rodman won how many rings? Do you think Philly regrets not trading AI? Would Detriot have won this year without Sheed? Maybe this is another part of the GM's job in today's NBA.

    Let's say that you were the owner of a company that survived on strictly sales and you had this employee that totally seperated himself from all other employees. This guy was your top salesman, made you tons of money. The only problem was that he was a jerk to everyone else in the office. No one could stand him. Now they havent' threatened to quit but you knew they were miserable with him in the office because he was such a jerk.

    What do you do?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

      Well, not to harp on Larry (though I do it so well ), but what you just described doesn't fit his personality at all. He's an introvert with a no-nonsense attitude. Those are two big strikes against being able to "handle" a troublemaker.
      Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

        Even as an oldtimer, Ron would be a tough call. After witnessing his "apparent" improvement last year it puzzles me what's going on. If it is something that is disrupting the team or a lack of respect for the coaches - he's gotta go. If it's something that's manageable - he's gotta stay.

        I would spend a lot of time on this one though. There is no doubt in my mind Ron is the type of player that can get us to the top.
        The best exercise of the human heart is reaching down and picking someone else up.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

          Arcadian, I am one of the foremost Artest supporters.

          However, I think you are totally off base with your assessment of what management's responsibilities are regarding Ron.

          Management's only responsibility, in collaboration with the coach, is to decide what the limits are. In other words, how much disruption are they willing to absorb before it becomes "too much".

          Whatever that threshhold is, in the event it is passed, then I think they start pursing the best trade they can get for Ron.

          I can't say whether or not they have reached their limit or they simply see an unparallelled opportunity to improve the perimeter shooting of the team by acquiring Peja (since Peja wants to be traded).

          Regardless of the motive, Larry obviously knows that Bender isn't going to cut it; it's going to take Ron to have a chance of getting the trade done.

          But even being an Artest fan, I would never say it's management's job to just shut up and bear it.

          Everyone has a their own threshhold of tolerance that must be exceeded before some negative or punative action must be taken. Bird and Walsh are NOT marshmallows. They absolutely will not draw a new line in the sand.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

            Originally posted by Kegboy
            Well, not to harp on Larry (though I do it so well ), but what you just described doesn't fit his personality at all. He's an introvert with a no-nonsense attitude. Those are two big strikes against being able to "handle" a troublemaker.
            Exactly. And I can't recall too many "troublemakers" being on the Pacers, at least for long, during Donnie's tenure either.

            Rodman was weird, with the eccentricity and such, but I don't remember him as being a locker room problem or causing on-court disruptions.

            Rasheed seemed to change his attitude entirely when he got to Detroit. Artest hasn't ever caused major off-court problems [i.e., drugs, assault, abuse, etc.], but I think the problems he does cause, presuming they exist, are the ones that directly affect the Pacers as a basketball team. Not interacting acceptably with teammates and staff, trying to take over games by himself, and generally not listening to what people tell him.

            I've felt all along that from a purely basketball standpoint, I would never trade Ron. But I doubt that's the only standpoint.

            Official Member of the Anti-Alliteration Association

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

              Originally posted by vapacersfan
              First of all, babysitting is part of managments job.

              I wish my dad could read this post (he is currently in Baghdad) and reply to this, cause he could type a page, no joke.

              He is a top level manager for the government, and he said he spends 80-85% of his time babysitting. Anything from "he looks at me weird" to "my sister came out of the closet last week"

              Now with that said, how much are you willing to take. Like you said, we dont know all of what goes on behind the scenes. In the real world, even if you are the best, you can get fired, and will get fired, for stupid stuff, like missing meetings for some of the reasons "Artest" has, with the popular "migrane headache" excuse.

              I want to keep this short, but the bottom line is how much is managment willing to handle. Most managers dont mind it, esp. since a lot of them just have a lower level manager watch out for these "headache" persons, or players in our case.

              but you have to draw the line somewhere. And Rodman was crazy, but Artest has anger managment issues. I will be the first to say I LOVE him [as a player] and I would LOVE to get the ppurtunity to play on the same team as him. His desire to win is simply amazing and to die for. But if the other player are always looking over there shoulders afraid he might snap and not knowing how he will react, that is a problem.

              All right, sorry, this is kind of long, but I think it is safe to assume managment feels Ronnie has crossed that line.

              I really would like to get others feedback, esp. the older guys here. This is a interesting topic.
              VA, I understand your point. I just want to say there is a big difference in requried management style between the public sector and the private sector.

              As a manager in a very competitive consulting environment, we spend a certain % of our time babysitting. I think you always will when you're dealing with highly-motivated people - their drive to win/ be recognized/ etc. is the strongest part of their personality. Not necessarily as strong as a professional athlete, of course, but strong nonetheless.

              But if you're the boss, and you've got to spend all your time babysitting and not being the big-picture guy and running the company, you've got a problem. And in the private sector, if your employees are keeping you from reaching the company's potential (measured in size, profitabilty, or championships), that's where you draw the line.

              We don't know what DW's, LB's, and Rick's threshholds are, only they know. But DW has eighteen years of credibility in my book. If he says its "too much", then I believe him. We're not talking about management rookies like Ainge or the Paxson brothers.
              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


              • #8
                Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                Management's job is to field the best team possible for what they're willing to spend and put butts in the seats.

                If they feel Ron helps them do that, he should stay. If not, he should go.

                IMO he should stay unless there's a whole lot more we don't know about. But it's not my call.
                [edit=50=1092072761][/edit]
                The poster formerly known as Rimfire

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                  Donnie and Larry are no BS kind of guys. Give them too much BS to deal with and they're not going to tolerate it for too long. It's as simple as that. Without going into detail, it's gone on for too long. The ECFs weren't necessarily the last straw, but they confirmed what they already knew: that Ron can't be trusted to keep his emotions in check, especially when it matters most. You can't always be left wondering when the wheels are going to come off. It becomes too much of a distraction.
                  [edit=27=1092073913][/edit]

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                    Originally posted by Jay@Section222
                    But if you're the boss, and you've got to spend all your time babysitting and not being the big-picture guy and running the company, you've got a problem.
                    Well put, Jay.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                      If they trade Ron and this team struggles to win 50 games I expect larry bird to be fired. If they match their wins from last season or come close, I'll happily eat my words and make a larry bird avatar.

                      It's gonna be bad though, the end of what could have been a pacers dynasty.

                      After all, what is managments job? to win games and a championship. If that means putting up with players tudes, then so be it.

                      Secondly, where is all this talk about Ron being a cancer, off court probs, and whatnot coming from? It seems like all rumors to me that everyone bought hook line and sinker. Maybe I could start some rumors about Tinsley being a cancer...

                      I'd love to hear about this stuff with Ron if any of you guys are insiders or know more than just agreeing he is a headcase.
                      [edit=488=1092073952][/edit]

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                        I think we need to remember what a tremendous job the team does in keeping things out of the media... and probably what willing accomplices our local media happens to be.

                        Therefore, I think it is a safe assumption to figure there is way more to the Artest story than what we've read. Migraines, backaches, missed shootarounds, missed meetings, injuries, etc..... probably only scratch the surface.

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

                        ------

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

                        -John Wooden

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                          Originally posted by PacerMan
                          Originally posted by Snickers
                          Originally posted by Kegboy
                          Well, not to harp on Larry (though I do it so well ), but what you just described doesn't fit his personality at all. He's an introvert with a no-nonsense attitude. Those are two big strikes against being able to "handle" a troublemaker.
                          Exactly. And I can't recall too many "troublemakers" being on the Pacers, at least for long, during Donnie's tenure either.

                          Rodman was weird, with the eccentricity and such, but I don't remember him as being a locker room problem or causing on-court disruptions.

                          Rasheed seemed to change his attitude entirely when he got to Detroit. Artest hasn't ever caused major off-court problems [i.e., drugs, assault, abuse, etc.], but I think the problems he does cause, presuming they exist, are the ones that directly affect the Pacers as a basketball team. Not interacting acceptably with teammates and staff, trying to take over games by himself, and generally not listening to what people tell him.

                          I've felt all along that from a purely basketball standpoint, I would never trade Ron. But I doubt that's the only standpoint.

                          [/i]

                          Ron went through his court ordered? anger counseling BECAUSE of an incident with his wife.
                          Actually, I think it was just one of the mothers of one of his kids.
                          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


                          • #14
                            Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                            I know at least Jay believes that Walsh wishes that he stuck with Chuck a little longer. How do we know that this isn't a mistake, too?

                            I think that Kegboy makes a great point about Larry. Is he the kind of GM who can get the most out of hard cases? I believe that this is a must for GM's or at least thier coaches now a days. Can Larry or Rick turn out diamonds in the rough? Dumars can, Phil Jackson can, West can, Brown can...

                            Finally if public and private managent is different could managing NBA players be different than any other kind of professional? A lot of these players come from poor childhoods they come with bagage which most other highly successful people do not have. Factor in, too, that these are kids we are talking about. Who wasn't immature at that age? I know I have matured since being 24.




                            "They could turn out to be only innocent mathematicians, I suppose," muttered Woevre's section officer, de Decker.

                            "'Only.'" Woevre was amused. "Someday you'll explain to me how that's possible. Seeing that, on the face of it, all mathematics leads, doesn't it, sooner or later, to some kind of human suffering."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Maybe its management's job to put up with Ron

                              I have experience on this issue as a fan from riding the roller coaster for the last 8 years with Iverson. Ron and Iverson are similar players they both play through pain, they both play with high intensity and passion and leave everything on the court each game and they are both talented players. Also I don't think either one of them is a cancer.

                              On the negative side they both create distractions off the court and on the court sometimes their passion gets the best of them and they try to do too much on the offensive end and hurt their teams by breaking plays or forcing bad shots.

                              This past week with Iverson was a typical scenario we have dealt with for 8 years in Philly. He is unprofessional and shows up late for a meeting and gets suspended. Next he goes out and hits 2 crucial three pointers late in a game including the game winner.

                              The question is do you trade a player who is a distraction off the court but who wins games on the court? If you decide to trade this player will you be able to get market value and a player with equal talent so that your team doesn't go in the tank? I'm sure the 76ers have shopped Iverson but haven't been able to get equal value in return over the years.

                              Just from my outside perspective if the Pacers can acquire Peja for Ron I think you have to pull the trigger. Why? Because players like Ron and Iverson don't change dramatically off the court so it is always difficult to get equal value in return in a trade. Other teams aren't going to give up superstars for them because of their off the court reputations so as the years pass it gets more difficult to get equal value in a trade.

                              If you can add an elite MVP caliber player like Peja for Ron you have to do the deal because if Ron continues to have off the court issues (that is a high probability) you'll never be able to land an elite player like Peja in the future for him.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X