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

Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

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

  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    No Seth, you really just don't get it. The Pacers ARE NOT great. We have 2 wins against playoff caliber teams. 2! I don't understand how people can't understand that level of competition matters.
    Yes, the level of competition matters. But home vs away matters as well. We have had 10 home games and 14 away games.

    Let me list the away games for your convenience:

    @ Toronto (below .500, win)

    @ Charlotte (below .500, loss)

    @ San Antonio (over .500, loss)

    @ Atlanta (over .500, loss)

    @ Minnesota (over .500, loss)

    @ Milwaukee (over .500, loss)

    @ New York (over .500, loss)

    @ Washington (under .500, win)

    @ Los Angeles (under .500, win)

    @ Sacramento (under .500, win)

    @Golden State (over .500, loss)

    @ Chicago (over .500, win)

    @ Oklahoma (over .500, loss)

    @ Detroit (under .500, win)

    We have had 11 games against "over .500" opponents so far. Only 3 of those games were (vs Phily, San Antonio and Denver) in Indiana. We went 1-2 in those games. The remaining 8 of them were away. We were 1 - 7 in those games.

    So, we're losing against playoffs teams in their courts without our best player. Who would have thought?


    Originally posted by Dece View Post
    You guys are in for a real wake up when we stop playing bottom feeders. We host Memphis on New Year's Eve. You feel strongly enough about our rebounding to place a bet on who wins the battle of the boards that night? Pretty confident they are going to come into our gym and take our lunch money, because they are an actually tough team who can impose their will on anyone -- they don't have to push around the Bobcats to look good.
    It's a home game. I'm sure that we will do well. Actually, I'm willing to bet that we're going to win the rebounding battle. If we lose it, you can keep that Hibbert jersey that you'll buy
    Originally posted by IrishPacer
    Empty vessels make the most noise.

    Comment


    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

      Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
      So some people really believe that Hibbert is better than Gasol? .... cocaine is a hell of a drug....
      So, if we believe that two players are close in ability and quite comparable then that means that we believe that one of them is better than the other?

      Gotcha..
      Originally posted by IrishPacer
      Empty vessels make the most noise.

      Comment


      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

        Originally posted by Dece View Post
        What seems a lot more meaningful is that we're beating bad teams at an 85% clip, while beating good teams at an 18% clip.
        While playing those bad teams at home and those good teams on the road. Than you very, very much for proving my point
        Originally posted by IrishPacer
        Empty vessels make the most noise.

        Comment


        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          Anyway, it always comes back to the same thing, some people are happy being a second round playoff exit max quality team every year hoping to get lucky, and some are willing to do anything for a championship.
          And what exactly do you, vnzla, me, aamcguy, Peck, Hicks and every other person on this forum do for this team? What can they do? Do you play the games? Do you train the players? Do you coach the team? Do you pay their salaries? What is it that you're willing to do?

          At most, you go to games. That's the most that a fan can do. He can support his team and go to its games. He doesn't play the games. He doesn't train the players. He doesn't coach the team. He doesn't pay everyone's salary. A fan can go to the game and cheer for his team. That's all. So, I really don't get what do you mean with the "willing to do" comment.

          PS I: Just because we lost to the second round once, it doesn't mean that we will never get past the second round.

          PS II: If attendances were the way to calculate records, we would be 26th in the league. Just sayin'


          Originally posted by Dece View Post
          Some people are always going to demand that you do everything you can, take risks and shoot for the championship.
          Those people better be willing to tank hard, though. Taking risks and shooting for the championship is great but it can backfire bad and put the team in a many years of suckage. Are those people willing to go through them?

          Because the ownership certainly doesn't seem to think so. The Pacers are not fully supported by the state of Indiana. The fans are not coming to support the team in winning seasons. They have no reason to think that in case of a losing season the crowds would come to the BLF.
          Originally posted by IrishPacer
          Empty vessels make the most noise.

          Comment


          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

            Originally posted by Nuntius View Post

            Those people better be willing to tank hard, though. Taking risks and shooting for the championship is great but it can backfire bad and put the team in a many years of suckage. Are those people willing to go through them?

            Because the ownership certainly doesn't seem to think so. The Pacers are not fully supported by the state of Indiana. The fans are not coming to support the team in winning seasons. They have no reason to think that in case of a losing season the crowds would come to the BLF.
            Absolutely agree with everything you wrote. Two great points you brought up that I wanted to add to:

            -The Pacers were not in a financial situation to allow their All Star, 25 year old center to leave with nothing in return. Simon and management have to deal with marketing pressures in the state of Indiana that we as fans don't fully care about or understand. People may not like it, but that's the way it is. I give them a little leeway for that fact.

            -I really respect the Pacers for not tanking when they easily could have. The Thunder tanked three years in a row to build that team. The Celtics, Bulls and a lot of other teams tanked to some extent to build their cores. The fact that we didn't really means a lot to me.

            Comment


            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

              Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
              -I really respect the Pacers for not tanking when they easily could have. The Thunder tanked three years in a row to build that team. The Celtics, Bulls and a lot of other teams tanked to some extent to build their cores. The fact that we didn't really means a lot to me.
              Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they were to tank. I like the fact that they didn't tank but I'd understand it if they were to tank.

              The reason that I mentioned it is because I want to keep people realistic about some things. Risks are great but they can backfire baaad. For every Durant there is an Arenas. For every Dirk there is a Rashard Lewis. Not every risk pans out.

              Are people willing to go through several years of losing if the risk doesn't pan out? That's what I'm asking.

              Because that's what the "championship-or-bust" people are asking for.

              Will they help finance the team when the risk fails and the town's population continues to turn the back on the team?

              That's my question.
              Originally posted by IrishPacer
              Empty vessels make the most noise.

              Comment


              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                Originally posted by aamcguy View Post
                My epeen is bigger than yours.
                That seems highly unlikely... you aren't old enough to have accomplished much ;-) If you need someone to help you with your homework PM me.

                People here seem to take arguments really personal. Everyone here is a fan, they wouldn't waste their time coming here if that weren't true. Arguing is one of the best ways to learn and understand other people's viewpoints. Step back, don't take it personal, and if you have a viewpoint that you believe in, learn to explain and defend it. It's an enjoyable debate and both "sides" can learn more about the other side and why they think the way they do. What bothers me most about this board is often people will say something and give it no justification or reasoning. Just make up stuff out of thin air. If you believe something, know *why* you believe something, and if you're going to make statements, be prepared to explain the rationale behind those statements. These things greatly improve forum discourse. Resorting to personal attacks though, whether it's calling someone a negative nancy, an overly positive fanboy, stupid, or yes I did it too, just too young, are all failures in honest discussion.

                At the end of the day none of us are GM's, so I assume there's no real reason to believe one of us has a more valid opinion than another. It's sports... having an opinion to talk about is a large part of the fun.

                Comment


                • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                  Originally posted by Nuntius View Post
                  Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if they were to tank. I like the fact that they didn't tank but I'd understand it if they were to tank.

                  The reason that I mentioned it is because I want to keep people realistic about some things. Risks are great but they can backfire baaad. For every Durant there is an Arenas. For every Dirk there is a Rashard Lewis. Not every risk pans out.

                  Are people willing to go through several years of losing if the risk doesn't pan out? That's what I'm asking.

                  Because that's what the "championship-or-bust" people are asking for.

                  Will they help finance the team when the risk fails and the town's population continues to turn the back on the team?

                  That's my question.
                  You're exactly right Nunt, they wouldn't be called risks if they couldn't go bad. However, you don't win anything by always playing it safe. You do all the information gathering you can, try to get the odds as much in your favor as possible...but you can always roll snake eyes. OKC went through ~5 rough years transitioning off of the perennially good, but never great, Ray Allen/Reshard Lewis team. Now they get the better part of a decade of being championship contenders. 100% worth it in my mind. So yea, I'm willing to trade away all my vets and develop my youth and collect lottery picks. That isn't where this team has been in position to do this year or last year, but it certainly was 5 years ago.

                  This particular team is in a position more akin to the very good, but not great, Pistons team recently where they took a BIG risk in bringing in a "locker room cancer" Rasheed Wallace. He could have brought that team down with his antics. Instead he lifted them up to the title. They risked it though. If you want a title you need big talent, and to acquire talent you have to take risks. A lot of people thought we'd win the title the brawl year...but it was a big risk, having Ron Artest, a known problem child, Jack, a known problem child, and Tinsley, a known problem child, all on the same roster. We ended up rolling snake eyes. Hey, that sucks, but we could have won it all, and the team is still here. If we ever want a title, we will have to take new risks, I know that's true.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                    Originally posted by King Tuts Tomb View Post
                    Dece can you point me to the post you made during free agency where you said we should pay Asik $35 million?
                    I didn't post over the off season...I was sweating my balls off with very little to no computer access for the Air Force during that time. I think the point you want to make is that I'm backseat driving and didn't think Asik would be good beforehand. While I did actually think he would be, it's actually irrelevant...you see, my job isn't professional talent evaluator, scout, or NBA general manager. It's Air Force Officer. It's not my job to know a player is about to break out. It is Pacers management's job, however. So if I didn't see it coming, I haven't failed, but if THEY didn't see it coming, they did fail. You see how that works? Houston saw it coming, so clearly it wasn't impossible to do, and they now get to reap the benefits while we don't.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                      Originally posted by Dece View Post
                      People here seem to take arguments really personal.
                      People take it personal when you say things like, "you just don't get it" or when you insinuate you being older makes your argument better. And once again, with this statement, you are passing the blame of the emotion on to the other person. At one point aamcguy gave you a perfectly good explanation of his side of things, and you say, "What even is your argument man?" Take some time to understand everyone's opinion and people might not get so emotional. Just a thought.

                      Comment


                      • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                        Originally posted by Dece View Post
                        It's Air Force Officer.
                        Oh yeah, and thanks for serving!

                        Comment


                        • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                          Originally posted by HickeyS2000 View Post
                          People take it personal when you say things like, "you just don't get it" or when you insinuate you being older makes your argument better. And once again, with this statement, you are passing the blame of the emotion on to the other person. At one point aamcguy gave you a perfectly good explanation of his side of things, and you say, "What even is your argument man?" Take some time to understand everyone's opinion and people might not get so emotional. Just a thought.
                          Actually there was nothing to understand until I forced him to explain it with that question. He made a statement without explanation and didn't defend it until pressed. After he defended it, which he did in a good way, I understood - which was the point. You'll also note I called myself out on innapropriately commenting in an ad hominem fashion with the age thing twice now, so maybe grow some thicker skin and let it go. I've posted something like 50 comments in here, certainly thousands of words, 1 annoyed comment is hardly so ground breaking as to still be hung up on it. There's plenty of actual content to comment on.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                            Originally posted by Dece View Post
                            Actually there was nothing to understand until I forced him to explain it with that question. He made a statement without explanation and didn't defend it until pressed. After he defended it, which he did in a good way, I understood - which was the point. You'll also note I called myself out on innapropriately commenting in an ad hominem fashion with the age thing twice now, so maybe grow some thicker skin and let it go. I've posted something like 50 comments in here, certainly thousands of words, 1 annoyed comment is hardly so ground breaking as to still be hung up on it. There's plenty of actual content to comment on.
                            And once again, you aren't willing to see the other side of things. Which was exactly my point.

                            Comment


                            • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                              Originally posted by Dece View Post
                              That seems highly unlikely... you aren't old enough to have accomplished much ;-) If you need someone to help you with your homework PM me.
                              Get this crap out of here, Dece. If you're so proud of being an adult, then please do us the courtesy of acting like one.
                              This space for rent.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Thunder/Pacers discussed Harden deal

                                Originally posted by Dece View Post
                                I didn't post over the off season...I was sweating my balls off with very little to no computer access for the Air Force during that time. I think the point you want to make is that I'm backseat driving and didn't think Asik would be good beforehand. While I did actually think he would be, it's actually irrelevant...you see, my job isn't professional talent evaluator, scout, or NBA general manager. It's Air Force Officer. It's not my job to know a player is about to break out. It is Pacers management's job, however. So if I didn't see it coming, I haven't failed, but if THEY didn't see it coming, they did fail. You see how that works? Houston saw it coming, so clearly it wasn't impossible to do, and they now get to reap the benefits while we don't.
                                You're playing an impossible game here. You're looking at only the personnel moves that worked then asking why the Pacers didn't make them. It doesn't matter if someone is an NBA talent evaluator, scout, GM or you work on Wall Street or in the Air Force, nobody can make the right move every time. All you can hope to do is make the right moves a MAJORITY of the time.

                                What you're doing isn't even backseat driving. You're looking at the car in the other lane asking "Why didn't you buy that car?"

                                This part especially is almost laughable:
                                So if I didn't see it coming, I haven't failed, but if THEY didn't see it coming, they did fail.
                                Fail? It's two months into the first season of a four year contract. This to me proves that you're not really arguing for any reason other than you wan't to argue. Roy could make multiple all star teams, Asik could join a cult and quit basketball forever, or vice versa. By any rational measure it's WAY to early to call it a success or failure.

                                As for Asik, I don't get the fascination. I like him as a player but Roy is almost at his level on defense and is far and away superior offensively. That's worth the extra six million dollars.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X