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

Artest responds to Peja rumors

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

  • #46
    Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

    Originally posted by Hicks
    I just don't like that some of you want to say we won 61 games and made the ECF because we dumped Brad for Scot. Because that's total bulls**t.
    Well, Brad is certainly a better player than Scot Pollard. But there are 2 things to consider when talking about Pollard.

    1: Pollard comes off the books pretty soon, and he'll be valuable as an expiring contract. Whether or not this is better than just letting Brad walk is debateable. Brad won't come off the books for 6 more years, and I'd be willing to bet a paycheck that within 3 years he's considered overpaid, and by the end, his contract is considered an albatross compared to his performance.

    2: You may have noticed some marked improvement by Foster at the beginning of last year in regards to how well he plays against other starting big men. That can be directly attributed to him spending the off-season hanging out with Tim Duncan. What you might not have noticed was the marked improvement during the season in his ability to score garbage buckets on putbacks and passes getting dumped to him as the cutter. I'd be willing to bet here that that's a direct result of him banging against Pollard all season. The things Jeff started doing as the regular season came to a close have been the hallmarks of Pollard's game for years. It's no coincidence that Foster starts doing these things the same year Pollard shows up.

    Was the trade a good one? Not really. Was it a worthless trade? Nope!

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

      Originally posted by bulletproof
      First, Hicks, you have no idea what you're talking about.
      Thanks for clearing that up; I was confused.

      Secondly, you have no concept of loyalty, and you have no concept of respect between men.
      Thanks for insulting my character, it's appreciated. Please, assume more next time.

      Donnie and the Simons wanted Reggie to retire a Pacer, and they wanted to show their gratitude to the man who brought so much to this franchise by allowing him to retire a Pacer. Reggie has put a lot of butts in the stands over the years. He has made this franchise a lot of money. A lot of money. What they're paying him is a pittance compared to what the Simons and this organization (and the fans) have reaped because of his tenure here. Reggie raised the stature, the level respect and the value of this franchise.
      Anthem said this part for me:

      I agree that Reggie deserved an appreciation contact. But let's be real. Reggie's appreciation contract came in 2000, when he re-signed at the mac. No other team would have given him close to that much. We did, and we made it a 3-year contract. 36mil is a lot of money for someone who's reached their peak and is on the way down.

      I love Reggie, and I'm glad he's retiring a Pacer. But giving him a second appreciation contract, especially one that puts us into the danger zone financially, at the cost of our starting center, wasn't a good move.
      And like him, I don't see what we gave Reggie as a direct reason Brad's gone. But it's obvious that it's a waste of money, and that money just might have been put to better use, like maybe keeping Brad. But not just that, it could have been something else. Like signing Stephen Jackson a year early, who knows. Something else could have been done for the team with that money than giving Reggie a second appreciation contract. Maybe even something as simple as saving the money now, so as to not be financially binded later on for a move they might want to make. Many possibilities.

      Donnie could have offered Reggie a minimal contract or asked him to take less, but he didn't. Why? Because he respects the man. Period. Do you not get that at all?
      Oh I get it. But like Anthem and I have said, this isn't the first appreciation contract Reggie's gotten, it's the 2nd. And this time, he was coming off a year where you couldn't even pretend he was worth the money, whereas last time he was still a very servicable SG after 2000.

      Reggie could have bailed on the Pacers a long time ago and left for greener pastures, but he didn't.
      Agreed and I love the fact that he stayed.

      It would have left an ugly mark on their relationship had the Pacers just let Reggie walk.
      3 years ago? Maybe. Last year? Not really. I'm sure if that's the direction Donnie wanted to go, he could have done it gracefully and both sides would feel OK about it. Or Reggie could have signed for less.

      Reggie's contract has nothing to do with Brad.
      Agreed, but not having it might have made it possible to keep him around. And don't storm back with a no here because you don't know one way or the other anymore than the rest of us; it's speculation.

      It's funny to me that you keep trying to rationalize your argument one way or another by bringing up Cro's contract, or Bender's contract, and now Reggie's.
      Yeah, because it shows he's willing to spend money on players not as good, or not nearly as proven, or those past their prime (considerably), yet NOT for an all-star center.

      If Donnie had let Reggie walk, he still wouldn't have re-signed Brad because he just didn't think the big soft hillbilly was worth it.
      Making fun of Brad's family tree to (not) strengthen your argument.. Classy.

      Oh, and guess what, Hicks. We won 61 games and went to the ECFs with Reggie and without Brad.
      For which I am grateful. Also grateful we managed it despite the loss of a key player.

      I am quite certain Donnie doesn't regret his decision in the least bit.
      I'm sure he doesn't.

      Brad will never be a team's franchise player. Brad will never be the man, the main attraction. He will never be the reason games sell out, he will never carry a franchise on his shoulders, and he will never raise the value and level of respect for a franchise the way Reggie has.
      You're right, and none of which is a requisite of being paid what he is. Let's not pretend Brad was getting a max contract here. He was making 2/3 of that at best. And for an all-star at a rare position to fill, that's easily worth it.

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

        They enter the debate because they're valid We wouldn't pay for an all-star center, but a 7th man or a so-far nobody, the check book opens up. That's the point.

        I think we all know what's done is done. It's just that you look at the recent history, and it blows my mind how Bender was worth his, but Brad wasn't. Or how Cro was worth it, but Brad wasn't. It doesn't matter; the team is good and should be for a long time, but that doesn't mean it's a forbidden subject.

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

          Originally posted by vapacersfan
          Well, you missed the point Hicks.

          Cro was a mistake, and DW felt like Brad would also be a mistake.
          You're probably right. I just wholeheartedly disagree that it would also be a mistake.

          I wasnt here when this happened, and I dont really care, as been said many times, it is the past.

          Ill just leave it at that
          Yeah, there's really not much left.

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

            Originally posted by vapacersfan

            Yeah, there's really not much left.
            Then why the **** was this thread hijacked, and is currently 3 pages long Apparently, some one feels there is a lot left
            I was speaking for myself.

            Back on topic, with the new news of this trade not being happen untill Septermber, looks like we have a whole lot more speculating to do
            Yep, more fun filled adventures in the world of waiting.

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

              Originally posted by vapacersfan

              Yeah, there's really not much left.
              Then why the **** was this thread hijacked, and is currently 3 pages long Apparently, some one feels there is a lot left

              Back on topic, with the new news of this trade not being happen untill Septermber, looks like we have a whole lot more speculating to do


              What new news are you refering to? I must have missed that somewhere.

              Elucidate please.
              Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                Hmmmm interesting. I wonder why it can't happen until then???
                I don't think anybody is BYC or any of that. So the only reason I can see is them speculating that it would take that long to convince the Maloofs that Peja means business.
                Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                  Wow - what a thread.

                  Bullet - I'm sorry I haven't seen your post until now. But your post doesn't just address how Donnie and the Pacers respect and care about Reggie, it addresses how I feel very accurately as well.

                  And vapacerfan, I know I'm off-topic, but what the heck? The argument is probably a more passionate and worthwhile topic than Artest's comments anyway.

                  Were we 61 game winners BECAUSE of or IN SPITE OF the loss or Brad?

                  I'll rank my reasons for 61 victories.
                  1. Getting rid of Isaiah.
                  2. Carlisle and his defensive strategies.
                  3. Artest - Growth in both game and character.
                  4. PG competition. Tinsley's "new attitude".

                  I started to label #5 as the "departure of Brad", but just couldn't do it. Because I'm not certain.

                  I think that to some degree, the better overall quickness of our frontcourt due to Foster being in the lineup played a part in our success.

                  As has been mentioned before by many, our opponents do make themselves aware of where Jeff Foster is on the court, and trying to keep him off the boards. Foster also blends more into Carlisle's defensive approaches.

                  IMO, the one and perhaps only thing that Brad did well for us was to provide the mid-range jumper from the front-court. The jumper that we seemed to need throughout the season. But perhaps at the expense of what we were able to accomplish on the defensive end of the floor.

                  I really don't know how any of you could be so certain about what might have been with Brad, one way or the other. Brad has 8 more points a game, but Foster is qucker, a better rebounder and better defender,

                  Under Isiah, Brad was definitely the guy you would want.

                  But in Carlisle's system, I'm not so certain that a player like Foster doesn't provide more overall game.

                  I think it's too close to call.

                  But one thing is certain. At the end of the day, Walsh decided that the dollars Brad's agent was commanding were simply too much for what the Pacers might expect in return.



                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                    I will say to those of you opposed to me on Brad, just wait until Ron's gone. You think you've been annoyed now? Just wait. There will be legions of this from other people over Ron.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                      Originally posted by able
                      Seems to me math is not the strong point of a lot of posters here.

                      n'import whether we paid Reggie or not (less then 3 mil would've been an insult imo, so 5 (actual figure according to publications) is not that far off, keeping Brad would've meant another 8 mil added to the salary for the team just for this past year.

                      You seem to forget that we dumped Mercer's contract in the meanwhile, traded Brad's for Polly (salary-wise) and had we done something else as in signing Brad to the same contract he got now would therefore have added 8 million dollar to the current salary.
                      Add to that the fact that the Pacers are already in LT land, and by the latest numbers even over the cliff build into that LT, it would have meant that we would have had to pay a dollar for dollar tax on that amount, in other words, Brad would have cost this franchise 16 million dollar for the past season.

                      Yes, that would have been 4 less if Reggie was given 3 instead of 5, but still 12 million dollars more cost would've prevented us most likely from swallowing the 5 million of IT's salary and approx 4 mil for RC.

                      Brad aint worth that kind of money, nor not getting Rick.
                      All excellent points, able. What some people fail to do is look at the bigger picture. When you look at the totality of Reggie and Scot's contracts, they come out to roughly $30 million dollars, and come off the books in two years. Brad's comes to a staggering $67 million for 7 years. I guess $37 million isn't a lot of money when you're not writing the checks.

                      Let me also add that Reggie did take a rather large pay cut this past year. He went from making $12 million a year to what? $4-6 million? That's a significant pay cut as far as I'm concerned. To offer him any less would have been an insult.

                      As for Anthem contending that Reggie got his appreciation contract at the end of the 2000, I disagree wholeheartedly. At the time Reggie was awarded that contract he was still putting up "Reggie-like" numbers. In fact, the following season he lived up to that contract and bettered the finals season by averaging 18.9 ppg (versus 18.1 ppg). The season after that, 16.5 ppg. A slight dropoff, but not significant.

                      Then a couple of factors came into play. Namely, the emergence of JO, and ultimately Reggie's injuries. Yet, he still managed to average 12.6 ppg in 02-03. But guess what? His percentages were still consistent.

                      So as far as I'm concerned, this last contract was the appreciation contract, not the 2000 contract. It kept Reggie here and allowed him to retire a Pacer.

                      Something a lot of you may not be aware of, but Reggie's contract is the last one Donnie deals with in the off-season. That's because the two men have an understanding. It's how they've always done business. If Donnie had put a $1-2 million contract in front of this man, it would have been a slap in his face, and he would have been forced to seek out other options and look out for his best interests. Do you really believe that that's the way Donnie and the Simons would have liked to have ended their relationship with Reggie—the guy who helped build this franchise into what it is today?

                      These people respect one another, and that transcends any petty argument you might raise here.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                        Originally posted by beast23
                        Wow - what a thread.

                        Bullet - I'm sorry I haven't seen your post until now. But your post doesn't just address how Donnie and the Pacers respect and care about Reggie, it addresses how I feel very accurately as well.

                        And vapacerfan, I know I'm off-topic, but what the heck? The argument is probably a more passionate and worthwhile topic than Artest's comments anyway.

                        Were we 61 game winners BECAUSE of or IN SPITE OF the loss or Brad?

                        I'll rank my reasons for 61 victories.
                        1. Getting rid of Isaiah.
                        2. Carlisle and his defensive strategies.
                        3. Artest - Growth in both game and character.
                        4. PG competition. Tinsley's "new attitude".

                        I started to label #5 as the "departure of Brad", but just couldn't do it. Because I'm not certain.

                        I think that to some degree, the better overall quickness of our frontcourt due to Foster being in the lineup played a part in our success.

                        As has been mentioned before by many, our opponents do make themselves aware of where Jeff Foster is on the court, and trying to keep him off the boards. Foster also blends more into Carlisle's defensive approaches.

                        IMO, the one and perhaps only thing that Brad did well for us was to provide the mid-range jumper from the front-court. The jumper that we seemed to need throughout the season. But perhaps at the expense of what we were able to accomplish on the defensive end of the floor.

                        I really don't know how any of you could be so certain about what might have been with Brad, one way or the other. Brad has 8 more points a game, but Foster is qucker, a better rebounder and better defender,

                        Under Isiah, Brad was definitely the guy you would want.

                        But in Carlisle's system, I'm not so certain that a player like Foster doesn't provide more overall game.

                        I think it's too close to call.

                        But one thing is certain. At the end of the day, Walsh decided that the dollars Brad's agent was commanding were simply too much for what the Pacers might expect in return.



                        Post of the week nominee

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                          JO = 7 years, 126mm
                          Brad = 7 years, 67mm

                          Brad's contract = 53% the size of JO's. That's hardly "staggering". Brad is at WORST half the player JO is.
                          [edit=12=1092686363][/edit]

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                            Originally posted by Hicks
                            JO = 7 years, 126mm
                            Brad = 7 years, 67mm

                            Brad's contract = 53% the size of JO's. That's hardly "staggering". Brad is at WORST half the player JO is.
                            Oh, now we're comparing Brad's contract to our franchise player's contract.

                            Who's next? Brewer?


                            [edit=27=1092687390][/edit]

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                              Brad is ~95 times the player Jamison is

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Re: Artest responds to Peja rumors

                                [quote user=Hicks uid=12 fid=1 tid= rid=66]...
                                [/quote]

                                Near...Far...Where EVER You Are...

                                God damn it Hicks, change your f-ing avatar already!!

                                You know, I used to like to just stare at your sig for the pictures of Aly, but now I just can't get that damn song out of my head.

                                Come to the Dark Side -- There's cookies!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X